Hatred for "blacks"& natives disappeared in USA 18th to 20th c when its economy took off and was invested in heavily. But he gives the cliche: "Hindu-Muslim" issues upset business interests, that is, profits of a small subset of the people.
But why would "investors" suddenly stop investing if "Hindu-Muslim" issues are really that of a "fringe" group with no traction in society? When have jihad or its heavily state suppressed "Hindu" reaction ever stopped businesses? it didnt in Mumbai '92 or 2008!
If at all, "Muslim-Hindu" violence has been severely localized, restricted to a few towns or cities, and even after the rascalry of city-paralyzing jihadi violence - businesses, especially large businesses linked to FDI, have gone on unhindered.
given reality of scarce "violence",bogey of "Muslim-Hindu" violence hurts business "sentiments" raises two questions: if FDI is withdrawn it indicates either transnational links of such FDI to Islamist interests that tries to leverage FDI as tool of Islamic expansionist interests
or that FDI is not really threatened, but it is used as a bogey to try and make the Hindu the "good Hindu" who quietly allows the strengthening of mullahcracy without protest and by ceasing to be a "Hindu"..
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1) Jihadis have not thought out Sarmishtha case fully. They and their patrons, think they can use full state coercion to make an example out of her - to gain Muslim votes, intimidate Hindu dissenters. But they r failing to sense the deep alienation and considerable anger in ppl.
2) this is not helping jihadi cause, as some think the leader of Rashidi foundation himself had openly abused Hindus/Hinduism online (screenshots were posted but not sure they still exist) but never faced the heavy hand of law and order the way Sarmishtha is being made to face.
3) sometimes whether by design (as in Dandi March)or unintended, people are given the choice between only two options. Who takes which side, shows up their true loyalties, commitments, affiliations and priorities. This case is taking a similar psychological space in popular view.
1) Every European country that has in the past, and continues to, facilitate, protect, and enhance Islamist movements or organisations outside Europe as part of Neo-imperialist foreign policy - are defenceless against jihadis on their own soil.
2) the reasons are wide ranging, historical, and twisted by the colonial interlude. The long stranglehold of a totalitarian church has created a social psyche that runs on a dominance submission paradigm and ironically the weakening and discrediting of the church leaves a vacuum.
3) the church weakened because it was totalitarian, just like the Soviet state as it collects all the dregs and charming psychopaths as the sole outlet for their perversions and ambitions without necessarily the talents for their people to flourish under their rule.
1) Mandal might be onto something. Let’s explore RT and ancestors dalitness. RT’s grandpa was treated as untouchable by his grandma for dining and more with Europeans, and bathed every time she had to come to his proximity. She being from same casta. But it gets stranger.
2) Dalit Dwarkanath sat at separate table from his European guests since Europeans were offered plates of “forbidden meat” and he wouldn’t eat it. He also practised “Brahminical” rituals. His wife and mother were strict vegetarians and practised orthodox rituals.
3) in fact apparently the first rift between the couple happened from his association with non-veg eaters in his business circle and the suspicion that he must be contaminated by association. And yet they were a Dalit family. 🤔
1) All borders are temporary compromises in space and time. Retreats and expansions are part of the process. Identities should not be linked to physical borders, even though never give up on territorial claims, even while retreating.
2) Country and nationhood are not identical, and they don’t have to be. However, their deviation from each other over long periods can only be resolved by the dissolution of one or the other, eventually leading to dissolution of both.
3) Sometimes existing power relations in a state form itself prevent the natural fulfilment of a nationhood. It becomes a state where every force within balances and wears the other out, paralysing the state. That is when the state itself becomes the greatest enemy of nationhood.
1) Some observations. Hindus, (and all those in other identities who find themselves aligned closer to Hindus than their community leaders) should not rely only on the country’s army to stand fast against jihadi aggression. They might. They may fail. But a bigger issue remains.
2) the army is conditioned to obey superior command. Their first reaction will be to obey the order. If the order is to hold back, or retreat, bulk of them will follow. The greatest weakness in national armies before jihadis is the vacillation or betrayal of their commanders.
3) many hv argued with me on the most used defence of Indians in the British army of India, “the oath”. It’s not that oath was a novelty invented by the Brits, but Indians obviously wr not so shy about flipping oaths when they left defeated Hindu kings to join invaders.
1) The E.Pak army could easily paralyse jihadis. Two reasons it won’t: such a move can provoke jihadis inside the army to revolt, 2nd, the longer jihadis rampage, better army’s case for not handing over power to elected parties. Current arrangement works for three key players.
2) the intention of international backers of E.Pakistan is to create a weak political regime (Ghazi Yunus is excellent for this with no real networks of power in a jihadist social base) dependent entirely on the army. As long as he can be the facade, army rule can’t be blamed.
3) with Yunus in facade, the army can protect jihadis so jihadis can be reassured to do what they do best: rape, arson, massacre, generally terrorise the population and impose mullah rule at all levels of society. Both Yunus and army have plausible deniability.