Caste Politics

1. What is politics? It is not 'social service' - it is the pursuit of power.
2. What kind of system is society? Liberals say it is a system made up of individuals. They are wrong. Society is a system made up of groups.
3. Now putting #1 and #2 together: Politics is the contest for power - not among individuals, but among groups.
4. Which is the most basic type of group in Indian society (as of now)? It is caste.
5. Now putting #3 and #4 together: Politics is the contest for power among different castes.

So nationalists who question/criticise caste politics are basically making the same mistake as liberals - not understanding the fundamental nature of society and politics.

Work Is Worship

WORK IS WORSHIP

# Our degrees and the colleges we went to are our inputs. The work we do is our output. A system is not judged by its inputs - it is judged by its output. So the world will not ask us: "What are your degrees?" or "Which colleges did you go to?". It will ask us: "What work are you doing?".
# All work is important. No work is unimportant. So exactly what work we are doing is not important. What is important is giving 100% to that work. Everybody cannot be CEO of Google or CEO of Apple. And it is not needed also. Whichever work we do, we must give that work our 100%. A factory-worker who gives his 100% is superior to a CEO who gives his 99%.

2019 Man Of The Year: Amit Shah

# For ending the coalition era of Indian politics
# For starting a new era – the era of BJP dominance
# For turning BJP into a full-fledged national party
# For integrating Jammu & Kashmir completely with India
# For giving refuge to the persecuted Hindus of South Asia

Amit Shah is 2019's Man Of The Year . . .

Citizenship Amendment Bill (C.A.B)

# There are 200 countries in the world.
# There are 120 Christian countries in the world.
# There are 50 Muslim countries in the world.
# There are 2 Hindu countries in the world: India and Nepal.
# Nepal is small and is under the shadow of China.
# So effectively there is ONLY ONE Hindu country in the world: India.
# So India MUST give shelter to every persecuted Hindu from any country in the world.
# Inside India (for Indian citizens) all religions ARE equal. But at our borders (for non-Indian refugees) all religions are NOT equal. India being the ONLY major Hindu country in the world MUST give preference to persecuted Hindus from other countries.
# Liberals always say that we must give special rights to minorities. In the world, Hindus are the minority. So Citizenship Amendment Bill (C.A.B) is nothing but a special right to this real global minority.

State Vs National Politics/Elections

In the April/May national election, the BJP stormed back to power with an even bigger majority than before – by winning an astounding 303 seats. The BJP became supreme. In particular – Prime Minister Narendra Modi and BJP Chief Amit Shah (later Home Minister) became supreme. This supremacy became even stronger on August 5 – when the central government effectively revoked Article 370 and brought Jammu & Kashmir completely under the Constitution. It even went one step further and ended Jammu & Kashmir's statehood – by dividing it into two Union Territories. The Prime Minister and Home Minister were supreme and unchallenged – both as administrators and as political leaders.

Then in October, two states - Haryana and Maharashtra - had their elections. BJP/NDA was the red-hot favourite to win both the state elections. Then came the first shocker. In Haryana, BJP became the biggest party – but failed to get a majority. This was mainly due to the opposition of the biggest caste in the state – the Jats. Eventually (and ironically) BJP was forced to ally with the Jat party JJP in order to form the government. Then came the second shocker. In Maharashtra, BJP's NDA partner Shiv Sena demanded the Chief Minister's post – in spite of it winning lesser seats. When BJP refused, Shiv Sena broke the alliance and joined hands with arch-rivals NCP and Congress to form the government (thus effectively defecting to the UPA).

BJP still has 303 seats at the centre – and the Prime Minister and Home Minister still have complete control over the central government. But their aura of invincibility has been shattered. This is especially so due to the fiasco in Maharashtra – which is India's second biggest state and biggest economy. There BJP lost the state – in spite of it winning the election. The question is: Why did these setbacks happen? And more importantly: What is the solution to them?

The answer is a fundamental truth about Indian politics: national politics and state politics are two completely different ball-games. Therefore – the strategy and tactics that help you to win one game will not help you to win the other game. Specifically – the BJP's victory in the national election was mainly due to 3 factors:
1. The central government's pro-poor welfare schemes
2. The RBI successfully controlling inflation
3. The Prime Minister's popularity

Now none of these factors matter in state elections – which are fought, won and lost exclusively on state issues. The Indian political-administrative system is a two-level system: centre and states. The government at each of the two levels has its own functions to perform. The average Indian voter may still be a poor and illiterate farm-worker in a village. But still, he/she knows the difference between the central government and the state government – and therefore the difference between the national election and the state election.

If that is the case, then what are the important factors in state politics – especially the ones that BJP may be neglecting due to its total command over national politics? We can think of 3 critical factors:

1. Strong State Leaders
A major reason for BJP winning 303 seats at the centre is that Indians want to have a strong leader (Prime Minister). Now why on earth should this basic principle be different at the state level? Do Indians want a strong Prime Minister but a weak Chief Minister? Just as Indians want a strong leader for the country, similarly they also want a strong leader for their state (Chief Minister). And from a national party's point of view, it will be strong only if it has strong leaders at both the levels – centre and states. Central leaders must not see strong state-leaders as a threat – but instead as a strength. One of the key reasons why Congress Party declined is because the insecure Indira Gandhi ruthlessly cut down strong state-leaders and replaced them with weak puppets whose only qualification was their loyalty to her.

2. Managing Caste Equations
A primary reason for BJP sweeping the national election is that a majority of Hindus voted for it – irrespective of their caste. This is a triumph of the Hindutva project – whose aim is to unite all Hindus. In a national election, the unit is the whole country – so Hindutva can succeed fully. But in a state election, the unit is just the state – so state-level caste equations will come into the picture. Caste is the social system of an agricultural society – which India is and will be for the forseeable future. As we modernise (industrialise + urbanise) caste will become obsolete – and Hindutva will succeed fully in state elections also. But till that time, it will be important for a political party to manage each state's caste equations intelligently.

3. Managing Alliances/Coalitions
Narendra Modi and Amit Shah have 100% control over the BJP. But the other NDA parties are a completely different matter. So they cannot treat leaders of other NDA parties the way they treat other BJP leaders. Again – the basic point about the centre and the state being two different systems is relevant here. That is, there is a national NDA – and there is an NDA in each state. The state-NDA must not be seen merely as an automatic subset of the national-NDA. The state-NDA is an independent entity with its own dynamic – and hence must be treated accordingly. Using the national-NDA's management techniques to manage the state-NDA will lead to sub-optimal outcomes. In this regard, we can remember how Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee (one of post-1947 India's greatest leaders) treated the leaders of even the smallest NDA parties.

Thus if the BJP focusses on these 3 factors in state politics, it will enjoy the same success in state politics that it currently enjoys in national politics.

Satyameva Jayate: Life, Career, Success & Truth

'Satyameva Jayate' means 'Only truth wins'. We always interpret this as 'Truth always wins over falsehood'. That is – we think the statement is about truth vs falsehood: so truth wins and falsehood loses.

There is another way of looking at this statement. All of us want to succeed in our lives and our careers. Whenever we are not satisfied with our lives or careers, we read books/articles and watch videos on 'How to succeed'. That is – we look for tips/tactics/techniques on how to succeed. This is a narrow view. The real answer is contained in this timeless line from the Mundaka Upanishad: Satyameva Jayate – only truth wins. So if I am not winning/succeeding, that means only one thing: I am not walking the path of truth; I am not living a life of truth; I am not doing truthful work. That is – the line is not just about truth vs falsehood. It is also about truth vs ME! So I must constantly ask myself: Am I walking the path of truth? Am I living a life of truth? Am I doing truthful work? If I am not, then no amount of tips/tactics/techniques (from books/videos/articles) will help me to become successful.

Hinduism: Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism

The most fundamental law of the universe is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It states that the entropy/disorder of a system always goes on increasing. And its corollary is: The only way to reverse this increase in disorder is to supply energy to the system. This law is about physical systems – but it also applies to society. That is – as time passes, a society/culture tends to decay. This is true for all societies/civilisations. India is the world's greatest civilisation not because it is immune to this law (it is not) – but because it makes use of the law's corollary. That is – whenever Indian/Hindu civilisation has shown signs of decay, it has produced great men who injected fresh energy into it and reversed the decay.

The first instance of this happened about 1000 years after the Vedas were composed – ie, around 500 BC. Hinduism had decayed – it had lost touch with Dharma and become filled with empty rituals and ceremonies. Then two great philosophers were born – Gautama Buddha and Vardhamana Mahavira. They founded two new religions – Buddhism and Jainism. By doing so, they restored Hinduism to its foundation of Dharma and thus rejuvenated it.

The second instance happened about 1300 years later – around 800 AD. Buddhism had become widespread but it had decayed – and was weakening Hinduism. Then another great philosopher was born – Shankara. He re-constructed Hinduism on its foundation of Vedas-Upanishads and thus revived it.

400 years later – around 1200 AD, the Turks from Central Asia conquered North India. They started massacring Hindus and demolishing temples – and continued to do so for 300 years. Once again, Hinduism was in crisis. If ever Hinduism needed a reformer and saviour – it was now. In 1469 AD, yet another great philosopher was born – Guru Nanak. He founded a new religion Sikhism and infused new life into Hinduism.

Around 1500 AD, another Central Asian people – the Mughals – conquered North India. They continued the Turks' project of massacring Hindus and demolishing temples. Since Sikhism was revitalising Hinduism, it became a special target. In 1606, Jahangir tortured and executed the 5th Guru Arjun Dev. In 1675, Aurangzeb tortured and executed the 9th Guru Tegh Bahadur. Finally in 1699, the 10th Guru Govind Singh built the Sikh community into an army, fought against the Mughals – and saved Hinduism from being wiped out.

Today on the sacred occasion of Guru Nanak's 550th jayanti, let us remember the sacrifices of the Sikh Gurus and their followers for the sake of protecting Hinduism . . .

The Rama Temple at Ayodhya

The Rama temple at Ayodhya was demolished in 1528 – almost 500 years ago. So from the viewpoint of modern law and evidence, the case for the temple today may not have been 100% solid. But still the Supreme Court unanimously gave the disputed land completely to the temple. Why? The answer is obvious. It is due to the post-2014 and post-2019 political situation in the country. That is – it is due to a Hindu nationalist party winning a majority in two consecutive national elections (with the second majority being bigger than the first).

In theory, a court must give its verdict purely on the basis of law and evidence. But in reality, a court should give its verdict by also considering the larger social context in the country – especially in sensitive cases. This was not an easy verdict to give. The five judges faced the toughest test of their long and illustrious careers – and they passed it with flying colours. Let us thank them. And let us thank the thousands of ordinary men and women who fought this long war. May Lord Rama bless us with wisdom and strength. Jai Shri Ram.

Shudras, Caste Politics and Economic Reforms

Ancient Indian society had 6 groups: priests/Brahmanas (5%), warriors/Kshatriyas (5%), merchants/Vaishyas (5%), farmers/Shudras (50%), workers/Dalits (15%) and tribals/Adivasis (7%). So Shudras (lower castes) are the majority. In 1979, Prime Minister Morarji Desai of the Janata Party government set up a Commission under a man called Bindheshwari Mandal to look into the welfare of Shudras. The Commission submitted its report in 1983. It recommended 27% reservation for backward Shudra castes (Other Backward Classes or OBCs) in government jobs. In 1990, Prime Minister V P Singh of the National Front government implemented the Mandal Commission's report.

Shudras are mainly farmers and are made up of many castes. Some castes are big ('forward castes') and others are small ('backward castes'). The Mandal Commission gave reservation to backward castes but not to forward castes. Each state/region has its own forward castes: Uttar Pradesh (Yadavs), Bihar (Yadavs), Haryana (Jats), Gujarat (Patels), Maharashtra (Marathas), Karnataka (Lingayats + Vokkaligas), Andhra Pradesh (Reddys + Naidus), etc.

In 1991, we started changing our economy from inefficient government-controlled socialism to efficient free-market capitalism. The process is still incomplete. We freed our industry from government control. But our agriculture and inputs to industry (land and labour) are still under government control. So today, even after 3 decades of economic reforms, only 25% of our people work in industry. But 45% of our people still work in agriculture – which produces only 15% of our economic output. So on the one hand, industry has not grown to employ farmers as factory-workers and take them out of agriculture. And on the other hand, our inefficient agriculture has kept our large number of farmers poor. The worst-affected people by this double whammy are the farmer-castes who do not have reservation – ie, the forward Shudra castes.

Due to these developments, the forward Shudra castes started demanding reservations in both education and government jobs. In 2016, Jats (30% of Haryana) launched an agitation to demand for reservation. In 2018, Marathas (35% of Maharashtra) did the same. In both cases, the state government succumbed and granted reservation to the agitating forward caste. And in both states, the case went to the High Court. The Bombay High Court upheld Maharashtra's Maratha reservation but the Punjab-Haryana High Court shot down Haryana's Jat reservation. So Marathas were happy with the ruling BJP in Maharashtra but Jats were furious with the ruling BJP in Haryana. As a result, BJP won the election in Maharashtra but lost the election in Haryana.

What does all this mean for India's politics? India's politics has always been known to be based on caste – which is the fundamental unit in the social system of an agricultural society. But BJP won this year's national election by beating the equations of caste politics. The most spectacular example of this was Uttar Pradesh – where it crushed the alliance of the two biggest castes (Yadavs + Dalits). This led many people to say that caste politics has ended and we have entered the era of post-caste politics. The elections of Haryana and Maharashtra have disproved this hypothesis. Caste may no longer be a factor in national politics – but it is still a factor in state politics.

And what does this mean for India's economy? It means that as long as our agriculture and inputs to industry are controlled by the government:
1. Industry will not grow
2. Agriculture will be inefficient
3. Farmers will be many and poor
4. Farmer-castes will be angry
5. They will demand reservations
6. And they will get it – because of their numbers
The only way to get out of this vicious cycle is to free our agriculture and inputs to industry (land and labour) from government control.

India's Economic Reforms and the States

India's government is a federal system – ie, a two-level system: centre + states. Since 1991, our media and economists have been talking about economic reforms (transformation from government-controlled socialism to free-market capitalism) and demanding economic reforms – which is a good thing. The problem is they demand these reforms from only one of the two levels: the centre – which is only 50% of the equation. They have completely forgotten the other level and the other 50% of the equation – the states.

An economic system needs 3 inputs to make products and services – land, labour and capital. Our economy is inefficient because our markets for all these 3 inputs are inefficient. So to make our economy efficient, we must reform our markets in land, labour and capital. Successive central governments have been reforming our capital market by reforming our financial system since 1991. The problem is the other two markets have not been touched – land and labour. Why?

Our Constitution has divided powers between the central government and state governments by assigning some areas to the centre (central subjects), some areas to the states (state subjects) and some areas to both (concurrent subjects). Land is a state subject and labour is a concurrent subject. So it is the state governments who must carry out reforms in our land market and labour market – ie, land reforms and labour reforms. So our media and economists must take a break from their obsession with the central government. They must start demanding economic reforms from the state governments – especially land reforms and labour reforms.

Conservatism Vs Liberalism: Society, Individuals, Government

A country has 3 basic entities: society, individuals and government. What are their relative importance? There are two fundamentally different views:
1. Society is more important than individuals and government (Conservatism)
2. Individuals and government are more important than society (Liberalism)

Society, Government, Economy

Society is a system of people living together. For it to exist, the people must follow certain rules: don't cheat, don't steal, don't kill, etc. So society created a system to make these rules and enforce them. That system is called 'government'. So the purpose of the government is to make and enforce rules.

To live, people need many things – like food, clothes, houses, etc. People obtain these things by making and exchanging them with others. They do this as individuals, families or groups. These make up the economic system or the economy. So the economic system is made up of individuals, families and groups/companies. And its purpose is to produce goods and services, and sell them.

Thus in society, many different functions need to be performed. And society has developed a system to carry out each of those functions. For society to be efficient, each system must perform only its function – it must not perform any other function. If a system performs a function other than its own, then society will become inefficient.

So the government's job is making and enforcing rules – not making and selling products and services. That is the job of the economic system (individuals, families and companies). If the government tries to do the job of individuals, families and companies, it will lead to an inefficient society.

India - $ 5 Trillion GDP in 2024

GDP is always stated in current prices. When the Prime Minister declared a goal of $ 5 trillion GDP in 2024, it means $ 5 trillion in 2024 prices - not in 2019 prices. So a part of this growth/increase will be price increase. That is - the growth rate needed to go from $ 3 trillion to $ 5 trillion in 5 years will include inflation (the rate of price increase). In this case, the (nominal) growth rate needed is 11% (because 3 × 1.11^5 = 5). The GDP growth rate announced every quarter and every year is the real growth rate - which is the nominal growth rate minus inflation. Our inflation is currently 3%. If we continue with this inflation, we have to grow at a real rate of 11 - 3 = 8%. If we allow inflation to increase to 5%, we have to grow at a real rate of 11 - 5 = 6%. So the target of $ 5 trillion is easily achievable.

CORRECTION:
My friend Amitesh Singh has pointed out a fundamental error in the above analysis. If India's inflation is x% and America's inflation is y%, then the Rupee will go down against the Dollar by (x - y)%. And the GDP target (5 trillion) is in Dollars. This means two things:
1. We won't get any benefit from a higher inflation in reaching the GDP target.
2. The only 'discount' we get in the required growth rate of 11% is America's inflation rate (currently 2%). So we have to grow at 11 - 2 = 9%.

India: Capitalism and Economic Freedom

# Freedom has two parts: political freedom and economic freedom.
# Since the beginning of history, every civilisation had a free economic system.
# In 1848, Karl Marx designed a government-controlled economic system – and called it 'socialism'.
# And he called the free economic system as 'capitalism'.
# In 1917, Lenin implemented socialism in Russia.
# In 1947, Nehru implemented socialism in India.
# So in 1947, we got our political freedom – but lost our economic freedom.

Money, Happiness, Selfishness

People say going after money is 'selfishness'. Is this language correct? Are we our bank accounts? Going after money is moneyishness – not 'selfishness'. When we go after money, we go away from ourselves. So going after money is the opposite of selfishness. It is anti-selfishness – or at best, false selfishness.

We are not our bank accounts. Then what are we? What is our essence? Our essence is our strength/potential. To achieve happiness, we must discover our strength/potential and do the work that uses our strength/potential. In other words – we must reject false selfishness (going after money) and embrace true selfishness (doing work that uses our strength/potential).

The problem in the world is not selfishness. The problem in the world is false selfishness. And the solution is true selfishness.

Impact Of Artificial Intelligence (AI) On Jobs

Q: What will be the impact of Artificial Intelligence (AI) on jobs?
A: AI will change the economy from A to I – ie, from an A-shaped system to an I-shaped system.

Since the Industrial Revolution (c1800), the structure of the economy has been like this:

That is, the economy had:
1. A few high-skilled jobs (scientists + researchers)
2. Some medium-skilled jobs (engineers + managers)
3. Many low-skilled jobs (workers + operators)
Thus the economy was roughly A-shaped.

Now AI is simplifying most tasks/functions so that they can be done even with low skills. So it is converting the medium-skilled jobs into low-skilled jobs – effectively pushing jobs from the middle to the bottom. And it is creating high-skilled jobs at the top – scientists/researchers to design and build these AI systems.

So the economy will become like this:

That is, the economy will have:
1. Many high-skilled jobs (scientists + researchers)
2. A few medium-skilled jobs (engineers + managers)
3. Many low-skilled jobs (workers + operators)
Thus the economy will become roughly I-shaped.

[Idea source: R Jagannathan, Swarajya magazine]

Economic Reforms, Welfare Schemes & Inflation: How To Win Elections In India

HOW TO WIN ELECTIONS IN INDIA

1991–1996: P V Narasimha Rao carried out economic reforms – and lost the election.
1998–2004: Atal Bihari Vajpayee carried out economic reforms – and lost the election.
Lesson #1: Economic reforms don't win the election.

2004–2009: Sonia Gandhi did not carry out any economic reforms. Instead she carried out welfare schemes – and won the election.
Lesson #2: Welfare schemes win the election.

2009–2014: Sonia Gandhi increased her welfare schemes. But this increased the fiscal deficit – which increased inflation. She lost the election.
Lesson #3: High inflation loses the election.

2014–2019: Narendra Modi learnt all the 3 lessons. So he
1. Carried out some economic reforms
2. Carried out many welfare schemes
3. Controlled inflation – by controlling the fiscal deficit
He won the election.

Work Hard, Work Smart, Work Right

The old mantra for success was Work Hard (ie, maximise effort). Then the new mantra for success became Work Smart (ie, maximise efficiency). Which is correct? Of course, both working hard and working smart are important. But in this whole Hard Work vs Smart Work debate, we forgot the fundamental truth. Which is that every human has his/her own true potential – and so real success is finding out that true potential and using it. Hence the key to real success is to do the right work – ie, the work that uses our true potential. Thus the real mantra for success is not just Work Hard or Work Smart – but 'Work Right'!

Free-Market Capitalism Vs Government-Controlled Socialism

In 2005, Tamil movie director Shankar Shanmugam made a movie called Anniyan ('Stranger'). The hero was a vigilante who goes around killing corrupt government officials. He launches his anti-corruption campaign in an auditorium by giving a slides-presentation on a big screen (!). In it, he first shows old black and white photos of Singapore and Hong Kong from 1945 – they were just small and poor fishing villages. Then he shows pictures of the two places today – big, rich and modern cities. Then he asks: "These two countries have made so much progress since 1945. We became free in 1947. Why are we still a poor country?". He answers: "It is because of our corruption. So from tomorrow, I will start killing anybody who takes a bribe."

It is a powerful scene. But it is only half-correct: it asks the right question – but gives the wrong answer. People are fundamentally the same in every country. Indians are not much different from the people of Singapore and Hong Kong – with roughly the same mix of good and bad. So it is not that we are significantly less moral than Singaporeans and Hong Kongers. But if that is the case, then what is the answer to the vigilante's question?

Human nature is the same everywhere. But different societies have different destinies because of different systems. Systems are destiny. And economic destiny is decided by the economic system. In 1945, Singapore and Hong Kong adopted free-market capitalism. But in 1947, India adopted government-controlled socialism. The results are there for everybody to see . . .

India, Socialism and Free-Market Capitalism (FMC)

What is capitalism? The dictionary says it is an economic system in which 'the means of production are privately owned'. 'Means of production' means farms, factories and companies. 'Privately owned' means not owned by the government but by individuals, families and groups. So capitalism is an economic system in which individuals, families and groups (not the government) own farms, factories and companies. Now how else should an economic system be? And how else has it been – since the beginning of civilisation? It is nothing but the natural economic system.

If capitalism is the natural economic system, why have a term for it? That too a term ending with 'ism' – as if it is an ideology? The word 'capitalism' was coined by Karl Marx – for two reasons:
1. To defame/slander the natural economic system
2. To distinguish it from his economic system 'socialism' – in which the government owns farms, factories and companies.

India became free in 1947. Nehru was a socialist. So he chose socialism as our economic system. With socialism, our economy grew at an average rate of 3% and our population grew at 2%. So our average income grew at 1% per year. Meanwhile, the East Asian countries (Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong) and the South East Asian countries (Malaysia, Thailand, Singapore) did not make this mistake. They adopted capitalism and grew at 10%. The result: By 1990, the East Asian countries became high-income countries and the South East Asian countries became middle-income countries. And we? We were still a low-income country – though in 1947, these countries were poorer than India.

Finally in 1991, the Soviet Union (the world's biggest socialist economy) collapsed – and proved that socialism is an inefficient economic system (China had wisely converted to capitalism in 1978 itself). The same year we had an economic crisis and we converted to capitalism under Prime Minister P V Narasimha Rao. Since then, our economy has grown at an average rate of 7% and our population has grown at 1% – so our average income has grown at 6% per year. As a result, we have drastically reduced our poverty and are on track to eliminate it. We have also become the world's 5th biggest economy and are on track to becoming, yes, a superpower. All this is due to the free-market capitalism (FMC) we embraced in 1991.

So now we have a choice:
A. Continue with free-market capitalism and become a First World country.
OR
B. Go back to government-controlled socialism and remain a Third World country.

Which Is The Best Job For Me?

Which is the best job for me? How to find the best job for me?

There are fundamentally 4 types of activities:
1. Working with Things
2. Working with People
3. Working with Information
4. Working with Ideas

Based on this, we can classify jobs also into 4 types. No job is a 'pure' job – ie, involving only one type of activity. Every job is a 'mixed' job: involving all the 4 types of activities – but in differing quantities. And in every job, one of the 4 types of activities will predominate. Thus there are fundamentally 4 types of jobs.

Different people enjoy doing different types of activities. Some enjoy working with things, some enjoy working with people, etc. So there are fundamentally 4 types of people:
1. Thing-workers
2. People-workers
3. Information-workers
4. Idea-workers

So the key to happiness is to:
1) Find out which type of activity we enjoy doing
2) Do a job in which that type of activity predominates.

Right-Wing Intellectuals & Intellectualism

A majority of intellectuals happen to be Leftists. And the Right refers to this majority as 'intellectuals' – not as 'Leftist intellectuals'. This seems to be a reasonable and acceptable approximation. But it is actually a dangerous mistake. Why? Because every time we refer to Leftist intellectuals as just 'intellectuals', we are saying that intellectualism and the Left are one and the same. We are surrendering the intellectual space to the Left. We are running away from the intellectual battle-field. Many right-wingers are fine with this. They say: "Leftists are thinkers; we are workers. They are arm-chair/ivory-tower people; we are real/practical people. They can keep their thought/thinking. We will do social work and build a strong society. We will do political work, win elections and rule the country. Thus we will build a strong India".

This kind of thinking is ignorance at its worst. What is a nation? What makes a great nation? What is a society? What makes a strong society? These are fundamental questions. And to know their answers, all we have to do is look at the 5000-year-old history of India. When we do that, we see that for 4000 years India was the greatest civilisation in the world. India's empires were the richest and most powerful empires in the world. How were these political and economic achievements possible? They were possible because they were built on the foundation of thought/thinking: philosophy, mathematics and science. Our kings, emperors, warriors, soldiers, traders, merchants, artisans, craftsmen, farmers and farm-workers built our rich and powerful empires – no doubt. But our philosophers, mathematicians and scientists laid the foundation for it.

What does all this mean for us today in the 21st century? The right-wing/nationalist project is to make India a superpower – technologically, economically and militarily. And to achieve this, it is not enough to simply 'build a strong society, win elections and rule the country'. Because a country can become strong technologically, economically and militarily only if it has a solid foundation of thought/thinking. So to make India a superpower, we must begin with the domain of thought/thinking. We must stop surrendering this domain to the Left. We must take it back and make it our own. And for that, the first step is to stop referring to Leftist intellectuals as just 'intellectuals' – and call them by their correct name: 'Leftist intellectuals' (or better still, just 'Leftists'). Then we must take the second step: developing right-wing/nationalist intellectuals.

Demonetisation, Modi and the 2019 Election

In November 2016, Prime Minister Narendra Modi in one stroke scrapped all ₹500 and ₹1000 notes. These accounted for 85% of India's cash. And India's economy is 80% informal/unorganised – which is heavily cash-based. The new notes took a long time to arrive – and people stood in long queues in banks and ATMs for many weeks. More importantly, demonetisation (DeMo) devastated the cash-intensive informal sector. Many small-scale enterprises shut down – and threw their unskilled workers into unemployment and poverty. The impact showed both in the form of a lower growth rate and also a higher unemployment. Of course, there were going to be long-term benefits: more formalisation, more digitalisation, more tax-payments, etc. But these are of interest only to economists. In a democracy, a political party has to face elections every 5 years. In this case, there were only 2.5 years to go for the next national election. So DeMo looked like a politically suicidal move.

Over the next 2.5 years, the Indian economy grappled with two major problems: unemployment and agrarian distress. Unemployment reached a 45-year high and it had definitely been made worse (if not created) by DeMo. Agrarian distress was also at least partially due to DeMo – because agriculture is also a cash-intensive sector. The 2019 national election approached and political scientists said the BJP would pay for its sins. Specifically, the Prime Minister would pay for his sin: DeMo. So the BJP which had won a majority on its own in 2014 would now fall to around 200 seats. Even the NDA would not win a majority – it would get around 250 seats. So the BJP/NDA would need one, two or most probably all three of the 'neutral' state parties (TRS, YCP, BJD) to form the government. Narendra Modi would become Prime Minister once again – but this time he would be much weaker. This was the consensus opinion of almost all political scientists.

Then the election happened. And the BJP won 303 seats – with the NDA winning totally 358 seats. Even by itself, this was an earthquake. And coming in the wake of a politically suicidal move like DeMo, it was a double-earthquake. So how did Narendra Modi manage to pull it off? He did it mainly through many pro-poor welfare schemes – but that is less important. What is more important is the basic fact that he pulled it off at all. Let this sink in: Narendra Modi carried out a politically suicidal move like DeMo and then went on to win 300+ seats. So what does this mean? It means only one thing: Narendra Modi is politically invincible. He is electorally bullet-proof. He can do anything (I repeat: ANYTHING) – and still win the next election. Conventional political wisdom can go to hell . . .

Narendra Modi's Welfare Capitalism

India's economic models:

Period	Prime Minister	Economic Model
1991–1996	P V Narasimha Rao	Capitalism
1998–2004	A B Vajpayee	Capitalism
2004–2014	Manmohan Singh	Socialism
2014–2019	Narendra Modi	Welfare Capitalism

Welfare Capitalism = 50% free-market capitalism + 50% pro-poor welfare schemes

2019 National Election and Modi-Shah's BJP

In 2014, BJP won 282 seats and reduced Congress to 44 seats. It was only the second time that a party other than Congress had won a majority. And it was the first time in 30 years that any party had won a majority. How did this happen? Economists gave 4 reasons:
1. 12% inflation
2. Low job-creation
3. Massive corruption scams
4. Modi's 12-year track record as Gujarat CM – and promising the same for India.

This looked like a logical explanation. Then the 2019 election should have been a return to the 'normal' state of elections in the coalition era (1989 onwards). That is – BJP should have got around 200 seats and Congress should have got around 100 seats. Instead, BJP got 303 seats and Congress got 52 seats. What does this mean?

It means the above explanation for the 2014 election was wrong. BJP's majority (and Congress's decimation) was not just due to the above 4 factors – which were temporary in nature. Instead it was also due to something far more fundamental and long-term in nature. And this was the transformation of BJP from a semi-national party into a real national party (what Congress was till 1989) – under the leadership of the Modi-Shah duo. The process started in 2014 (with Shah focussing on Uttar Pradesh) and continued in 2014-19 (with Shah focussing on the whole country). That is – during 2014-19, Amit Shah extended his 2014 Uttar Pradesh model to the whole country.

There is another story here, of course. In 1998-99, BJP first formed the government under Atal Bihari Vajpayee. In 1991, P V Narasimha Rao had started India's journey towards a free-market capitalist (FMC) economy. During 1999-2004, Vajpayee continued this journey by carrying out FMC reforms. Now FMC reforms lift poor people out of poverty – but the process takes longer than 5 years. And poor/illiterate people are the majority in India. As a result, BJP/NDA lost the 2004 election (much to the shock of economists).

Cut to 2014. Narendra Modi had run Gujarat for 12 years as an FMC reformer. So economists expected him to continue the same as Prime Minister. But Modi had learnt from 2004 that India is not Gujarat and so a purely FMC approach would not win the 2019 election. So he pursued a two-track approach. On the one hand, he carried out economic reforms – Goods & Services Tax (GST), Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code (IBC), Ease of Doing Business (EoDB), etc. These reforms strengthened the Indian economy – and will lift poor people out of poverty (after some time). On the other hand, he also carried out pro-poor welfare schemes – giving houses, toilets, gas-cylinders, etc to the poor. These schemes made poor people happy – by immediately improving their quality of life.

A nationalist party must make the country strong. But it must also win elections. It can make the country strong only if it is in power – not if it is sitting in the opposition. So Modi's two-track approach aimed to achieve both these objectives.

But this governance approach alone would not win the election – even with its pro-poor welfare schemes. Because having a good product is not enough; you also need a good distribution network – to take your product to your customers. Good business = good product + good distribution. Similarly, good politics = good governance + good organisation*. So a complimentary organisational approach was also needed. And Amit Shah did this by aggressively expanding BJP's organisation machinery. He took BJP into the East. He made BJP reach out to poor people – who had benefited from Modi's welfare schemes. He made BJP reach out to lower castes, Dalits and Adivasis. Thus he expanded BJP both vertically (socially + economically) and horizontally (geographically):

BJP's Base	Before Modi-Shah	Under Modi-Shah
1. Geographic	North + West	North + West + East
2. Economic	Middle Class	Middle Class + Poor
3. Social	Upper Castes + Lower Castes	Upper Castes + Lower Castes + Dalits + Adivasis

Therefore the 2014 election gave us a glimpse of BJP's long-term strategy under the Modi-Shah duo. And the 2019 election has shown us its culmination.

*The complete equations are:
1. Good business = good product + good distribution + good marketing
2. Good politics = good governance + good organisation + good campaigning

Life, Change And The Self

LIFE, CHANGE AND THE SELF

Everybody always talks about how the world is always changing. True. But the equation of your life has two major variables: the world and YOU. And people don't talk much about how you also keep changing. Change in this variable is simply assumed to be a continuous increase in knowledge level - which is due to accumulation of knowledge, which in turn is due to experience. As if man is a vessel that just keeps getting filled. But it's not only that. The 'vessel' itself keeps changing. That is - not just what we know but also what we think, what we want, what we like, etc (basically who we are) keep changing continuously.

So dealing with a 'fast-changing world' is the easy part. It is dealing with a continuously changing YOU that is much more challenging - and therefore much more exciting . . .

Surf Excel's Holi Ad

Surf Excel made an ad for Holi, and media praised it for 'promoting Hindu-Muslim harmony'. Some people questioned the ad - and media called them 'trolls'.

The ad shows an apartment colony on Holi. The children of the colony are bombarding people with colours. Then a girl comes and tells them to throw colours at her. She keeps doing this till all their colours are finished. Then she calls somebody out. He is a boy wearing a skullcap and white kurta-pyjama. She goes with him to a mosque and he goes inside to pray.

On the face of it, it seems to be a nice ad that promotes positive feelings/relations among people of different religions. Now let us look at it a little more closely:
1. If it weren't for the girl, the children would have ruined not just the Muslim boy's white clothes but (more importantly) his trip to the mosque and his prayer. The apartment colony is India and the children are Hindus. So:
a) Minorities (Muslims/Christians) have different circumstances and therefore special needs.
b) Hindus are ignorant of this and hence trample on Muslims/Christians' special circumstances/needs.
2. Children suffer from ignorance - so Hindu children ill-treat Muslims/Christians due to ignorance. But adults don't suffer from ignorance - so Hindu adults ill-treat Muslims/Christians not due to ignorance but due to bias/prejudice.
3. The girl is a liberal who protects the Muslim boy and opens the eyes of the Hindu children. Similarly, liberals protect Muslims/Christians from Hindus and educate Hindus about their bias/prejudice.

Thought/Thinking: Left Vs Right

Indian Leftism is nothing but hatred - ie, hatred of Hinduism and Hindus. But they call this hatred as 'thought'/'thinking' and themselves as 'thinkers'. Unfortunately the Indian Right has swallowed this falsehood - and therefore sees thought/thinking as an enemy. But the real enemy is hatred. Thought/thinking has been the foundation of India and Hinduism for 5000 years. It is also the most powerful weapon in the war against hatred.

Hatred Of Hinduism And Hindus (HHH)

# The British created a virus called Hatred of Hinduism (HoH).
# Our liberals mutated it into Hatred of Hinduism and Hindus (HHH).
# They labelled this hatred as 'secularism' - and (more importantly) any questioning of this hatred as itself 'hatred' (of non-Hindus).
# So Hindus are reluctant to question HHH - because they don't want to be accused of 'hatred'.
# This is the most brilliant pre-emptive strike in the history of ideological warfare.

See Hatred Of Hinduism

Law Of Mistakes

LAW OF MISTAKES

The number of mistakes you will make is proportional to:
1. The distance between where you are and where you want to be
And
2. How much of that distance you cover.

Thinkers And Workers

There are fundamentally two types of activities:
1. Working with people and things - ie, 'Working'
2. Working with ideas and information - ie, 'Thinking'
1% of humans are thinkers and 99% of humans are workers. The job of thinkers is to supply ideas. The job of workers is to implement those ideas.

This is the most fundamental division of labour in society. A society/country prospers when it gets this division of labour right. And it decays when it gets this division of labour wrong.

How Is Your Life?

HOW IS YOUR LIFE?

1. "I am where I should be."
Status = Great
2. "I am going where I should be."
Status = Good
3. "I'm in the wrong place, but I have a way out."
Status = Average
4. "I'm in the wrong place, and I have no way out."
Status = Perfect. Because you are experiencing life in all its glory, beauty, intensity and madness . . . ! ;-)

Society/System: Sheep & Wolves - 2

99% of people live in the system called society. They are the sheep. 1% of people run the system called society. They are the wolves.

For the system to run properly, the sheep must follow some rules: don't lie, don't cheat, don't steal, don't kill. In order to run the system properly, the wolves must lie, cheat, steal and kill.

For the wolves, there is only one rule: don't get caught. Every now and then, a foolish wolf gets caught. Then the other wolves throw him to the sheep. The sheep stamp the foolish wolf and kill him. Then both the sheep and the wolves go about living their lives and performing their functions. And the system keeps running . . .

See Society/System: Sheep & Wolves

Reservation for Upper Castes

RESERVATION FOR UPPER CASTES

When we became free in 1947, we had a legacy of a 1000-year-old unequal social system - which had excluded two groups: Dalits (15%) and Adivasis (7.5%). So to give them a level playing field, they were given reservation in education and government jobs in 1950. Dr B R Ambedkar said this system would be there for 10 years - and then abolished.

But in 1960, this system was extended by 10 more years saying it had not yet achieved its objective. Why did it not achieve its objective? What were the things that had to be done to make it achieve its objective? Nobody asked. This trend continued every 10 years thereafter.

In 1990-93, a new dimension was added. Another 27% reservation was given to the 'poor' among the Shudras (40%) - who were the bottom of the 4-layer social system. Now the total reservation came up to 50%. Supreme Court said reservation must not go above this level - to strike a balance between merit and social justice. But some states violated this rule.

Now we are in 2019. We have had 58 years of reservation for Dalits & Adivasis and 25 years of reservation for 'poor' Shudras. What is the situation today? What is the economic condition of the people of these groups? Is it satisfactory? If not, why - even after 58/25 years of reservation? What are the things we should really do to uplift them? These are fundamental questions. But we are not even asking them.

In 1947-50, we gave 15% and 7.5% reservation to SCs and STs because that was their population. But in 1990-93, we gave only 27% reservation to OBCs - though they are 40% of the country. Why? Answer: To stay within the Laxman Rekha of 50%. OBCs demanded 40% reservation - but they were kept at bay by using the Laxman Rekha.

Now we have erased that Laxman Rekha. So all hell will break loose. First, there is no moral ground left to say no to 40% reservation for OBCs. Next, SCs and STs are today 17% and 9% of the country. So they will also demand their quota to be increased. And so on and so forth.

We have opened the gates of hell . . .

PS: SC/ST reservation is going to the children of IAS/IPS officers, doctors and engineers - who don't need it. It is not going to the children of farmers and factory workers - who need it. So SC/ST creamy layer must be excluded from reservation (like OBC creamy layer).