His recent action with farmers is a sign that JP has graduated from being a Level 3 leader to level 4 (and budding level 5) leader. His work will not CERTAINLY inspire thousands of educated Indians across the world.

Please join politics! Become a leader yourself. Fight for liberty in India. My job is to ensure that India gets at least 1500 level 4 and level 5 leaders as soon as possible. Only then can GENUINE and long-lasting change be implemented. 

Being an educated, honest man is merely a beginning. Ensuring that your knowledge can translate to reality and help a billion people is the true test of your capacity.

I'm pleased that today both FTI and LokSatta are working as a close team (see details here).

But note that FTI is a platform (not political party) for ALL leaders who believe in liberty. You can be member of a political party and still join FTI – so long you support liberty.

Senior Bharatiya Uday Mission members are part of FTI, and those members of other parties (like Jago) who UNDERSTAND liberty, should also join FTI. We need all level 4 and 5 leaders of India to work together. Then there is no force on earth which can stop change. 

JP is an excellent communicator. I STRONGLY recommend that you spare eight minutes to listen to this:

Mainstream socialist media (The Age is as socialist as it gets in the Australian context) is now seeing the light of day. Surely the truth wins in the end. Satyameva Jayate.

As Lincoln said, "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time". 

But first, some facts:

1. "everyone [IN THE WORLD] used the squatting position until the second half of the 19th century"

2. "many physicians blame the modern toilet for the high incidence of a number of serious ailments"

Here are extracts from the FB conversation:

JS: Good Lord!

BH: One would hope not, but you do still see shoeprints on public toilet seats, presumably from people who hail from countries where squat toilets are the norm. Yet one imagines a sign like this would make little difference to such a person.

AC When I need "ideas" I always go to Victorian Health

CP I beg to differ on that one for the same reason as Ben — there are overseas students that may never have used Crapper-style toilets before. That was a problem at HKU when I worked there. Part of the orientation was how to use such toilets. 

There is amusing cultural difference from ANU I know about also — they have to tell some groups of OS students not to eat the ornamental ducks.

CK So, who's going to mention race and culture?

BH But ducks are so delicious!

CM I suspect it that it may be more necessary in a Uni than in many places …

MH the part about handwashing is necessary and needs to be mandatory / enforced all over the world (it's an epidemic!)

BH Mandatory?! What do you do if someone doesn't wash? Cut off their hands? How do you monitor it?

TT I presume those are the ones at Monash that Ms Schapper is talking about here - 

http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/schapper_in_the_crapper/

MH  Spot checks. Fines. The hygiene police would look after their little pond. After years in third world countries (like the US) I'm sick of having to share space and touch the same doorknobs with these beasts. A pretty clear externality when they handle your sandwiches.

This is an issue that is rarely, if ever, discussed in polite company. However, this provides an opportunity to examine the reality of the situation.

THE REALITY: SITTING TOILETS ARE FILTHY

The vast majority of Indians are deadly finicky about hygiene. Washing hands is RELIGIOUSLY taught to every child.

Even In rural areas where soap was not readily available in the past, sand was used for this purpose – ALONG WITH LOTS OF WATER. However, TODAY THERE IS NOT A SINGLE DWELLING (I'm not talking about the homeless or those who might be living or working in crowded situations in a slum) in India in which soap is not available immediately outside the toilet.

Indeed, using a sitting toilet with its associated paper roll was (and still is, for the most part) considered in India to be the MOST UNHYGIENIC and FILTHY practice.

The idea behind this is that these "Western" people don't properly wash their bum. Paper towels can never clean properly. It doesn't take rocket science to realise that barbarians who use paper are going about with sticky bits of waste material sticking to their bottom (at the microscopic level). These sticky bits are potent sources of disease. And it is such people who don't necessarily wash their hands (or properly). Once you've handled the body's waste product with your hand (while cleansing with water) you are naturally programmed to want to wash your hands – thoroughly.

So, sure, the sign to wash hands in this Australian university is probably necessary, but not for visitors to Australia from Asia. It is necessary for some Australians themselves (or other barbarians from the West).

THE REALITY: SQUAT TOILETS ARE NATURAL AND SUPER-HEALTHY

EVERYONE (and I mean everyone!) should read this article: Health Benefits of the Natural Squatting Position by Jonathan Isbit, in which he CONCLUSIVELY shows that squat toilets are healthy from MANY perspectives. And he doesn't even mention the health benefits of posture for the health of the muscles of the spine and pelvis. 

The following diseases are almost exclusively confined to the Western World: appendicitis, colon cancer, prostate disorders, diverticulosis, bladder incontinence, hemorrhoids, and inflammatory bowel disease.

Why?  - the "porcelain throne"

the porcelain throne has caused enormous amounts of needless suffering, and the annual waste of billions of dollars in health-care costs. Clearly, the time has come to reacquaint Western Man with his natural habits – and put this unfortunate experiment to an end

When Gandhi broke the salt law, he was promptly arrested.

Surprisingly, despite HUGE advance warning and public announcements that he will break the laws of the Andhra Pradesh government, JP was not arrested after he crossed Andhra into Karnataka and sold five quintals of paddy for Rs. 1 lakh to a lady named Ramalakshmi.

The IMPOTENT Andhra Pradesh government has basically failed to enforce its own laws. 

It is astonishing that we have managed to get SUCH IMPOTENT governments. India is a LAWLESS place. An anarchy.

The Andhra government has lost ALL MORAL AUTHORITY to govern. It has basically said it is impotent. It MUST RESIGN.

Well done, JP. This is the beginning of a DEMOCRATIC coup over these incompetent impotent statist corrupt governments of India.

As usual – not through any deliberation but through sheer incompetence. Sheer lawlessness.

This is what happened yesterday (as reported by the member):

I would like to sincerely apologise for my absence on the second day of the Annual Conference. I met with an accident on the way back (my auto wheel hit an iron rod protruding from a manhole cover and tumbled over). I've hurt my back quite bad. My friends have managed to get me back to Pune.

I was carrying [FTI] T-shirt & scribble pad and have lost it in the accident (along with my laptop). Someone simply sneaked out with my bag in the melee and it wasn't to be seen anywhere when I looked around.

There you go.

The FTI member is first "attacked" by INCOMPETENT governance – through an iron rod protruding from a manhole cover.

Then lawless INDIA takes over and divests the member of his FTI T-shirt, pad, AND LAPTOP.

I do hope this young man, an active FTI member, recovers his health as soon as possible. Back injuries unfortunately have a way of leaving permanent scars. I hope this injury heals properly. 

But  what this tells us in no uncertain words is this: India needs GOOD GOVERNANCE. Else NO ONE IS SAFE.

(Sadly ! I just lost about 3 paragraphs that I had typed, and have no time to repeat.) 

Let me say only this for now that I’m convinced that India’s future lies squarely in the hands of FTI leaders – the ONLY educated residents of India who are CITIZENS, the rest being servile colonial intellectuals – people who live in India but belong to another place, another time. NOT Indians. 

FTI has only about 50 to 60 active members at this stage (the total membership is 150+), but these are some of the most capable Indians, and the ONLY citizens of India (apart from the real people on the ground – the "ordinary" Indians who are both voters and leaders). These are people who have decide to take responsibility for their OWN nation and have both the vision for India's future, as well as capacity to work as a team.

In the coming days I’ll talk more about the conference and associated meetings that I had, but let me just note for now that I was enormously pleased at the standard of the discussions at the conference – and the spirit of teamwork demonstrated. This conference has confirmed to me that FTI has arrived. And if it can't succeed in changing India, then NO ONE ELSE CAN. 

I am convinced – beyond the slightest doubt - that FTI members will provide India with its greatest leaders of the 21th century.

There is still time for the hollow 'liberals' of India – those who merely preach but REFUSE to engage with India as citizens – to join or otherwise support FTI. Do it! Become the leader that you were born to be.

Being a late arrival on the political scene (from February 1998), and focused almost entirely on economic and governance (not social) issues, let me say that I had not heard of this gentleman. Nor, indeed, of any of the panelists.

While I have no intention nor capacity to become a scholar of Islam, I do have the duty to understand Islam better if I am to understand Indian society and participate in Indian politics. So I have been learning bits and pieces about Islam through various readings. Recently, if you recall, I have commented positively on at least three Muslims:

a) Mike Ghouse

b) Reza Aslan and

c) Irshad Manji.

Now I find in Maulana Wahiduddin Khan yet another Muslim with whose interpretation of Islam I can live with – even advocate (as I advocate elements of Buddha's and Vivekananda's teachings in my writings). 

I made extensive notes during the talk. The point that is becoming clearer is that just like (many) Christians were the GREATEST enemies of Christ for most of Christianity's history, so also many Muslims are the greatest enemies of Mohammed. 

Such "Muslims" have garbled, distorted, and entirely turned the message of Mohammed on its head. There seems to be a race to the bottom among organised religions. The more irrelevant an issue that is insisted upon (e.g. burqua or not eating pork), the greater is one's power over the flock. This is PURE POLITICS, not religion.

Anyway, here are extracts from my notes of the talk:

Islam teaches TOTAL freedom (except the 'freedom' of violence). God said you must be free and no one shall impose restrictions on your freedom till Doomsday.

There is a difference between Muslims and Islamic teachings.MUSLIMS ARE NOT THE REPRESENTATIVES OF ISLAM. They are followers of Islam. They are a community. That doesn't mean they represent Islam. Islam is the Quran.

Freedom of expression is the basis of ALL development and progress. Freedom leads to discussion which leads to intellectual development which leads to both secular and religious progress. Absence of freedom leads to intellectual stagnation which cannot be distinguished from the state of death.

I (the Maulana) invite criticism for criticism is healthy. Thus, both reason and religion favour freedom of expression.

The idea of blasphemy is foreign to Islam. It was a latter innovation during the Abbasid period. Mohammed was himself personally criticised in the Quran. Mohammed was called a mad man, magician, and his claims were said to be false. None who criticised him was killed! 

I (the Maulana) REJECT the idea that criticising the Prophet can be an excuse for violence. If someone criticises the Prophet through a book, you have the right to write another book to refute the criticism, but you have no right to take up the sword. There is NOT A SINGLE VERSE in the Quran that denies liberty of expression.

Jihad is an IDEOLOGICAL struggle, a peaceful struggle. Jihad is NEVER used in Quoran in terms of war.

War is permitted in Islam ONLY for defence. But even then war is the prerogative of the state. It is NOT up to any individual Muslim to take up a defence war on behalf of others.

Further, Islam makes clear that ONLY combatants are to be challenged in such defensive war, not the non-combatants.

In brief, I have NO REASON TO DISAGREE WITH A SINGLE WORD OF THIS INTERPRETATION OF MOHAMMED'S MESSAGE. To that extent I'm a practising Muslim, just as I'm a practising Buddhist, Hindu, Christian, and agnostic. 

The Maulana is unfortunately getting old (but still seemed very fit, and many decades yet to go! I hope), but I hope there are a good number of young Muslims he has trained, so the message of LIBERTY that Mohammed represented will spread across the world in the coming decades and culminate in the peaceful, prosperous, free world that we all deserve to live in.   

Maulana Wahiduddin Khan

The Maulana is a man of peace and liberty, widely recognised by many for his contributions.  Fortunately, his work is now available FREE OF COST, online.

About the Maulana

His books

His articles. I've picked this article that he published in India Today last year.

"Let’s examine that. The British did leave India. I think it is an assumption that they left because the Indians wanted freedom. Hogwash. Indians don’t care about freedom. If they did, they would not tolerate the criminals that rule them."

Big difference between independence and freedom

First of all I'd like to assure Atanu that I am the LAST person in the world to suggest that Indians "wanted freedom" (a few honorable exceptions like Rabindranath Tagore notwithstanding). If he would care to read BFN, he would know that I make clear this matter at great length in chapter 1. Indians did want independence, though. Self-rule. Let's avoid mixing words.

Atanu repeats the mix-up:

I think Sabhlok is right when he says that “liberty was not given to anyone on a platter.” Liberty was not given to Indians either. There was a transfer of power in 1947 for sure but that is not synonymous with independence.

For the third time he says:

PS: Dear Sanjeev, may I suggest that you examine your assumption that India achieved independence. Just because a new flag was hoisted and a new bunch of rulers took over, it does not make a people independent. Thank you.

Atanu, the Wikipedia definition: 

Independence is a condition of a nation, country, or state in which its residents and population, or some portion thereof, exercise self-government, and usually sovereignty, over its territory. 

Re: freedom, I've defined it in DOF EXTENSIVELY – over the course of four long chapters. So let's be clear in our use of words, and avoid mixing meanings.   

Why did the British leave India?

Atanu then questions my summary of India's history:

that Indians booted out the British. I think that is an unwarranted assumption. The British left. 

Now, the causes of such a large event are very complex, and very difficult to summarise in a line or two. I do appreciate that some people believe that the British left India because it became unprofitable for them to retain their hold on India. There might be some merit in this theory. And there were many global changes as well.

It is self-evident, though, that the work of Gandhi DIRECTLY influenced the shifting global position on colonialism. And, finally, the costs of holding on to a reluctant population were made even higher with Gandhi's Quit India movement. 

In sum, to suggest that Indians did NOT (in some form or shape) boot out the British, and that the British calmly got up one fine day, packed their bags, hailed a taxi, and left – out of sheer whimsy – would be a total distortion of the truth.

Indeed, to deny ANY (I would say major) role to the many freedom fighters (actually, independence fighters) of India would be tantamount to erasing and re-writing history.

I'm not sure Atanu has any particular credentials in history. Please do let me know if you've published any peer-reviewed work on this subject. Happy to read the details of your argument.

People apparently don't want good candidates

There is one more thing I want to touch upon, for this is one of the typical excuses liberals make for NOT participating directly in politics. Atanu claims in the middle of his post, thus:

Fact is that people are rational — even if they are myopic. Candidates know whether it makes sense to contest elections. Good candidates rationally stay out knowing that they will lose. The minority of voters who would vote for good candidates rationally don’t bother voting knowing that their preferences will be worthless when weighed against the larger group who would vote for corrupt criminals.

I'm sure Atanu knows a fair bit about strategic thinking (e.g. game theory). Let me just note that the voter is (almost certainly) refusing to vote for so-called "good" candidates for very good strategic reasons. If one candidate is the same as any other in terms of policies offered, then all the voter needs to do is to pick the one who will manage India's colonial system better than the other candidate. MMS-type candidates (or independents like Meera Sanyal) are particularly ill-equipped to manage the existing system. For managing the OC of the local police station (who is often a thug) you need a thug as MLA. That's why thugs are preferred to "good" candidates.

On the other hand, should a candidate say that he is going to change the SYSTEM (i.e. take a policy or issue-based approach) then there is a much higher likelihood of "good" candidates winning. The issue/s selected could be just a few, but these must resonate with the people, and make sense. AGP's victory against Congress in 1985 is a classic case in point. 

The liberals have not yet (never, to be precise!) organised any ISSUES-BASED platform at the national level. hey must offer is a radically DIFFERENT and BETTER government. And explain to the people how they will deliver it. It is RIDICULOUS to suggest that once a voter KNOWS he will get a vastly better government that he will reject the candidates. The success of Narendra Modi well illustrates this point. The voter WANTS RESULTS.

The failure is of the liberals, not of the voters.

Winning requires significant amount of propaganda, and offering outstanding candidates. It is important to prepare the voter for the many changes involved.  

This, the liberals refuse to do.

They then complain that the voter will "never" elect them anyway! (apparently "good candidates" "lose"). But sorry, such sissies are NOT good candidates. Anyone who doesn't think strategically and prepares well is NOT a good candidate in the first place. The voter is right in rejecting namby-pamby dreamers! The voter is not the fool that liberals take him for. 

It is the liberals who – WITHOUT organising systematically – and persistently, for decades on end, have given up. Without even the race having begun.

I'm sure Atanu will now consider looking within, instead of giving motherhood advice like: "only a change in the collective consciousness of the people, a change which makes them value freedom, would bring about a change in India’s destiny."

Who will bring about that change "in the collective consciousness of the people", Atanu???

You doing anything about it?

Are you even capable of working with a team of high-calibre people like yourself – inside the confines of a dynamic political formation? Are you capable of the give and take necessary, and do you have dog-headed persistence in the face of all odds? It is that which defines a good candidate, Atanu. Are you one of them?

It is time for ACTION, Atanu. Let's not waste our breath on cheap talk.

Let the liberals ORGANISE. That is, if they are capable of doing so! FTI is readily available as a vehicle, should they be serious about reform.

The British enjoyed this joke – of polite "brown Englishmen" who hoped to squeeze independence out of the oppressive British crown by begging for swaraj.

The task to remove the British from India was HUGE. Yet it was achieved.

But note that it was not achieved by polite entreaty. The liberals were IRRELEVANT to India. It was partly achieved by the non-violence movement. But it was the VIOLENT Quit India movement that finally sent shivers down the spines of the 300,000 Britishers living in India.

Yesterday I attended a panel discussion organised by Barun Mitra on freedom of expression. One of the best sessions I've attended. A brilliant panel, and a brilliant audience.

And yet the discussions were FEEBLE, WEAK, IMPOTENT.

Everyone in that room recognised that they DON'T COUNT. They said so, in so many words, five times, perhaps. The Indian government can bulldoze them, silence them without facing any political cost. The Indian government is shrewd enough not to arrest these polite convent-educated liberals for demanding liberty (unlike in China where such people would be behind bars long ago), but the Indian government has absolutely no intention of increasing freedom of speech in India – or ANY other liberty.

And these petite effeminate liberals can do ZILCH about it except prattle about it in their nice polite 'conferences' in India International Centre.

What a joke – these Indian "freedom fighters".

It was NOT by Gokhale's entreaties that the British finally left India. It needed SERIOUS ORGANISATION. ON A MASS SCALE.

Today India is oppressed by Indians on a scale last seen only during British rule. In many ways worse. More Indians are killed in India by the Indian government EACH YEAR than the British killed perhaps in a decade. Indians are surviving from moment to moment, unsure of what could happen to them next. One of the speakers rightly put it: Nothing is safe any more. And when the original fatwa against Rushdie is long dead and gone, the Congress government blocks the book and all discussion of the book (which I have not read and have no intention of reading), in 2012. Not 1912.

Indian liberals are effeminate and IMPOTENT (with no offence meant to the many women soldiers in world armies today). One thing they don't understand is that LIBERTY WAS NEVER GIVEN TO ANYONE ON A PLATTER. IT HAS ALWAYS HAD TO BE FOUGHT FOR, AND WRESTED OUT OF THE GOVERNMENT.

"Give me Liberty, or Give me Death!"

- This is one thing that Indian liberals simply don't understand. Why then do they prattle about liberty in nice cosy upper-crest gatherings which NO ONE FROM REAL INDIA is willing to join? There was no one from the streets, no rickshaw puller, no farmer.

I thought I'd raise this issue and so I challenged those assembled yesterday to STEP OUT INTO POLITICS and to WREST LIBERTY by taking over the parliament.  Do the hard yards of CHANGING THE LAWS OF INDIA to enshrine ABSOLUTE liberty of speech.

But my voice was immediately curbed, and the topic changed by Mohit Satyanand, chair of the session – and member of FTI's speakers' panel! I'm half inclined to disband the panel which has NO ENERGY AND NO CAPACITY FOR CHANGE. Mere hot air. I don't need 'wise heads' on FTI. I need PEOPLE WHO WILL FIGHT FOR LIBERTY. Let FTI evaluate and review this idea. Do we need such a panel, at all?

Today I'm told by people that the task I'm working on – to liberate India from Indians – is too big! But surely it is smaller than the task of making India an independent nation.

If we could boot out the British, surely we can boot out Congress and BJP, and wrest the freedom that is our birthright.

So this is purely experimental. I've used bits and pieces of the World's Smallest Political Quiz.

The first step – before I put in more effort – is to check whether this works and whether the questions are appropriate.  Once that is done, we could debate this on FTI. Even if FTI rejects it, it may still be a useful thing for me to provide on my blog. 

So please try this out and let me have your feedback. It would take not more than10 minutes. 13 short questions.