Saturday, 2 July 2022

Jason Stanley on why Putin isn't a gangster

Communists believe that their most dangerous enemy is Social Democracy. When they speak of 'Fascists' they don't mean guys like Hitler or Mussolini- with whom they would have happily done a deal with- they mean left-liberal politicians who believe in the Rule of Law.  

When Vladimir Putin announced Russia’s invasion of Ukraine at dawn on Thursday, he justified the “special military operation” as having the goal to “denazify” Ukraine. The justification is not tenable, but it would be a mistake simply to dismiss it.

It would be a mistake to entertain it for even a single second. Putin and his goons had gotten lazy. They had previously had some success in claiming that Russian speakers were being discriminated against in Ukraine. Furthermore, a Jewish oligarch who backed Zelenskyy had got into trouble for fraud in the US, so there was an anti-Semitic type of slur ready at hand. It should also be admitted that the Russian intellectual diaspora shared a type of Nationalist view which made Ukraine essential to Russian identity. Thus Putin had quite a good hand but the laziness and stupidity of his propagandists threw away this advantage. I suppose Putin- like the CIA- expected Ukraine to collapse. Kiev would be captured. Zelenskyy would flee. Perhaps there would have been some sort of rigged referendum. Perhaps Putin was banking on some Ukrainian oligarchs switching sides or else that his goons would  get control of some militia/gangster networks.  

Vladimir Putin is himself a fascist autocrat, one who imprisons democratic opposition leaders and critics. He is the acknowledged leader of the global far right, which looks increasingly like a global fascist movement.

This is nonsense. Putin is the ally of Communist China. He has some crazy ideology re. 'passionarity' which Turkic and Russian people have but which Western Europeans lack. This fits with China's vision of a Eurasia united under its leadership. There are no significant Fascist movements anywhere because there is no danger of a Communist insurrection. On the other hand crazy militias could arise in some countries very quickly.  But, as we learnt during the Nineties, this is more likely in ex-Socialist Utopias like Yugoslavia. There are significant ethnic tensions in some East European countries. But Nationalism is not necessarily Fascist. Indeed, during the Second World War, Nationalism was a feature of much anti-Fascism. It should be remembered that there was a Fascist aspect to ideas about a European super-state which, after the War, was espoused by people like Oswald Moseley.  

Ukraine does have a far-right movement, and its armed defenders include the Azov battalion, a far-right nationalist militia group.

But this group is against both Fascism and Communism for very good historical reasons. We must admit that it has showed valor and skill in defending Ukrainian territory. 

But no democratic country is free of far-right nationalist groups, including the United States. In the 2019 election, the Ukrainian far right was humiliated, receiving only 2% of the vote. This is far less support than far-right parties receive across western Europe, including inarguably democratic countries such as France and Germany.    

Putin can't afford to let democracy raise up the Ukrainian people as it has lifted up the Polish and Hungarian and Estonian and other people. For China, the question is whether a Eurasian bloc can prevent the emergence of a European defense Force able to act independently of the US. After all, America can always retreat into splendid isolation. However, if regional security is seen to work then dominance in Eurasia won't be any great prize. It will be what Stalin had. But Stalin's system only worked by stealing technology. Ultimately it collapsed.  

Ukraine is a democratic country, whose popular president was elected, in a free and fair election, with over 70% of the vote. That president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, is Jewish, and comes from a family partially wiped out in the Nazi Holocaust.

Plenty of Communists fit that description. But Zelenskyy is a democrat.  

Putin’s claim that Russia is invading Ukraine to denazify it is therefore absurd on its face.

Just as Stanley's claiming that everybody he doesn't like is a Nazi are prima facie absurd.  

But understanding why Putin justifies the invasion of democratic Ukraine in this way sheds important light on what is happening not only in eastern Europe, but worldwide.

No. Understanding that the guy is a corrupt, incompetent, fool is what is important.  

Fascism is a cult of the leader,

Not necessarily. Franco was plenty Fascist. Salazar could be described as fascist. But they lacked charisma. The fact is had Hitler and Musso not started unwinnable wars, they would have grown old and their 'personality cult' would have faded. Bureaucracy survives what charisma may have initiated. 

who promises national restoration in the face of supposed humiliation by ethnic or religious minorities, liberals, feminists, immigrants, and homosexuals.

Which leader does not promise 'national restoration'? Who says 'vote for me and homosexuals from minority groups will sodomize us in the streets while feminists and liberals and immigrants watch approvingly while munching pop-corn?' Okay. Maybe Biden did promise this and I didn't notice. Nobody really listens when that old fart drones on.  

The fascist leader claims the nation has been humiliated and its masculinity threatened by these forces.

Very true. Hitler didn't speak of a 'stab in the back' or his dream of vast colonies in Eastern Europe for German settlement, he said Jews were causing his penis to shrink. Also large numbers of African gentlemen were constantly humiliating him by inserting their penises into his rectum. 'If it can happen to me' Hitler would say, tears streaming down his cheeks, 'It could easily happen to you. Please join the SS so that you can defend yourself from shrinking penises caused by Jewish financiers and incessant sodomy performed by African gentlemen'.  

It must regain its former glory (and often its former territory) with violence.

As opposed to regaining its former glory by taking it up the ass from large numbers of African gentlemen while Jewish financiers orchestrated the shrinking of penises.  

He offers himself as the only one who can restore it.

Politicians say 'vote for me, not the other dude. Only I can restore things to the way the ought to be.' Jason thinks this very strange behavior.  

Central to European fascism is the idea that it is the Jews who are the agents of moral decay.

No. Mussolini was central to fascism but he didn't start off as anti-Semitic though some have suggested that nastiness was always latent in him. What was central to European fascism was hatred of the Reds who were slaughtering millions in Russia.  

According to European fascism, it is the Jews who bring a country under the domination of (Jewish) global elite,

This theory was put forward long before any Fascist party existed. It existed in Catholicism but also on the Left as 'the Socialism of Fools'.  

by using the tools of liberal democracy, secular humanism, feminism and gay rights, which are used to introduce decadence, weakness and impurity.

because penises start to shrink and you suddenly find lots of African gentlemen are taking turns wrecking your rectum.  

Fascist antisemitism is racial rather than religious in origin,

unless it is religious in origin. Franco made the Virgin Mary the Captain General of his Army. He also upheld the Hispanic and Portuguese notion that the blending of races was a salutary thing. Germany had some 'Aryanist' craziness which the Italians didn't have much time for. 

targeting Jews as a corrupt stateless race who seek global domination.

This was very much a Tzarist idea. The Russian secret police published and disseminated the notorious 'protocols of the Elders of Zion'.  After the First World War, some White Russian and Baltic Germans were active in the Far Right in Germany. Hitler was influenced by some such. 

The truth is Christianity- both Catholic and Lutheran- has often been the worst enemy of the Jews precisely because Christ was a learned Rabbi in the Mussar ethical tradition. 

Fascism justifies its violence by offering to protect a supposedly pure religious and national identity from the forces of liberalism.

Liberalism was no threat. It was fear of Communism that caused industrialists to fund Fascism.  

In the west, fascism presents itself as the defender of European Christianity against these forces,

This is foolish. European Christianity defends European Christianity. Indeed, it launched plenty of Crusades and spread its own doctrine to distant continents using gunpowder and steel.  

as well as mass Muslim migration.

Like peeps who don't like Muslims don't harbor an equal or greater hatred for Hindus, Sikhs, Confucians not to mention the fucking Belgians.  

Fascism in the west is thus increasingly hard to distinguish from Christian nationalism.

If you are as big a cretin as Jason- sure.  

Putin, the leader of Russian Christian nationalism,

says a non-Russian non-Christian who is as stupid as shit 

has come to view himself as the global leader of Christian nationalism,

Jason is a mind reader. But he won't read my mind to find out what I think of him. Sad.  

and is increasingly regarded as such by Christian nationalists around the world, including in the United States.

Ukraine, of course, has no Christian nationalists. The people there practice Zen Buddhism in between fighting off Putin's troops.  

Putin has emerged as a leader of this movement in part because of the global reach of recent Russian fascist thinkers such as Alexander Dugin

who is as stupid as Jason 

and Alexander Prokhanov

who could write quite well but who was clearly several kopek short of a rouble.  

who laid its groundwork.

Putin's brains may have turned to mush but the guy is all about the money. Real Estate is valuable because God isn't making any more of it. Fascism is for fools.  

It is easy to recognize, in Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, the roadmap laid out in recent years by Dugin and Prokhanov, major figures in Putin’s Russia.

Only because Putin's strategy is to have no fucking major figures in Russia. Crazy nutjobs are fine.  

Both Dugin and Prokhanov viewed an independent Ukraine as an existential threat to their goal, which Timothy Snyder, in his 2018 book The Road to Unfreedom, describes as “a desire for the return of Soviet power in fascist form”.

The problem here is that all sorts of Russian dissidents shared this obsession with Ukraine. Joseph Brodsky was Jewish and anti-Soviet. But he greeted Ukrainian independence with a venomous poem which, thankfully for his reputation, was never published.  

The form of Russian fascism Dugin and Prokhanov defended is like the central versions of European fascism – explicitly antisemitic.

Stalin was plenty anti-semitic. If he hadn't died, the 'Doctor's plot' would have led to a genocide of Russian Jews.  

As Snyder writes, “… if Prokhanov had a core belief, it was the endless struggle of the empty and abstract sea-people against the hearty and righteous land-people. Like Adolf Hitler, Prokhanov blamed world Jewry for inventing the ideas that enslaved his homeland. He also blamed them for the Holocaust.”

In the Nineties some Jews rose up in private enterprise and, for a brief period, supported a more liberal type of mass media. Vladimir Gusinsky and Boris Berezovsky are representative figures. Both were plundered by Putin's cronies and had to escape from Russia. Gusinsky, it must be said, appointed himself the head of the 'World Jewish Congress' which I resented because I'm the President of the 'Galactic Jewish Congress and falafel stall'. 

The dominant version of antisemitism alive in parts of eastern Europe today is that Jews

are like Gypsies. They are of Asian origin. Did you know Muslims don't eat pork? Thus, they are no better than Jews. As for the fucking Belgians- don't get me started.  

employ the Holocaust to seize the victimhood narrative from the “real” victims of the Nazis, who are Russian Christians (or other non-Jewish eastern Europeans). Those who embrace Russian Christian nationalist ideology will be especially susceptible to this strain of antisemitism.

Very true. Jeremy Corbyn is clearly a Russian Christian Nationalist. The plain fact is that Jews didn't talk much about the Holocaust till Israel started kicking ass and taking names. Why put ideas into other people's heads? Pretend that Hitler set up nice Holiday Camps coz he lurved Jews. Only if Israel can send Mossad teams to capture Eichmanns or assassinate terrorists, should you bring up the subject. But the thing can be overdone. The fact is I lost my mother at Dachau. I don't make a big song and dance about it not because Mum turned up soon enough- indeed, she claimed it was Dad and me who had wandered off- but because as a Russian Christian nationalist I'm above that sort of thing. 

With this background, we can understand why Putin chose the actions he did,

Fuck off! Putin and his buddies are about grabbing money and real estate and buying lots of Super-Yachts.  

as well as the words he used to justify them.

Stupidity causes him to use the stupidest possible words to justify his greed.  

Ukraine has always been the primary target of those who seek to restore “Soviet power in fascist form”.

Or Tzarist power in Tzarist form. The truth is Ukraine is beautiful, fertile, and has talented and hardworking people. Why not grab it, if you can?  

Echoing familiar fascist antisemitic tropes, in a 2021 article, former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev denounced Zelenskiy as disgusting, corrupt and faithless. The free democratic election of a Jewish president confirms in the fascist mind that the fascist bogeyman of liberal democracy as a tool for global Jewish domination is real.

The problem with Zelenskyy is that he is a Russian speaker- a very good one at that. This gives the lie to the notion that Russian speakers want to separate from Ukraine. Still, the fact that the President and Prime Minister of Ukraine are Jewish does cause people like Pakistan's 'Im the Dim' to go running to Moscow to congratulate Putin on his despicable act. This is like Iqbal fawning over Mussolini at the same time that the Italians were massacring Senussis in Libya. 

By claiming that the aim of the invasion is to “denazify” Ukraine, Putin

is doing exactly the same thing as Jason Stanley who describes anybody he doesn't like as a Nazi. Yet, the fact is, Stalin hated Jews and, with Allied help, did actually 'denazify' Ukraine and Poland and so forth. After that he called a lot of Ukrainians and Hungarians and Poles and was just getting started on his own Jews before he finally dropped dead. 

Communists have always called Social Democrats Nazi. I recall the pro-Albanian Marxist-Leninist General Secretary of the LSE Student's Union denouncing Ralf Dahrendorf as a Nazi in 1979. He was a a nice Hindu boy named Krish Maharaj from Trinidad. Since I am 'asli desi', I would say to him 'Maharaj, why you is praising this German fallow by saying he is devotee of Netaji Shubash's great admirer, Hitlerji? I yam telling you this filthy fallow is Liberal like Jeremy Thorpe! He is promoting putting of pee pee in chee chee place! Why you are condoning?' The Marxists decided I was too stupid to be recruited. They suggested I attend Amartya Sen's Social Choice lectures instead. 

appeals to the myths of contemporary eastern European antisemitism –

on which Jason being American is naturally an expert 

that a global cabal of Jews were (and are) the real agents of violence against Russian Christians and the real victims of the Nazis were not the Jews, but rather this group.

Being a victim sucks. Only after Israel beat the fuck out of the Arabs did it become safe or salutary to mention the Holocaust. If you are weak don't advertise your sorrows. Others may want to get in on the act.  

Russian Christians are targets of a conspiracy by a global elite,

Actually, some Americans did publish articles saying that it was the homosexuals who were painting Putin as the bad guy! Crazy is no nation's monopoly.  

who, using the vocabulary of liberal democracy and human rights, attack the Christian faith and the Russian nation.

Also they are causing our dicks to shrink.  

Putin’s propaganda is not aimed at an obviously skeptical west, but rather appeals domestically to this strain of Christian nationalism.

What strain is Jason appealing to?  

There are broader morals here.

People who describe those they don't like as Nazis have shit for brains. They will fuck up sooner or later.  

The attack on liberal democracy in the west comes from a global fascist movement,

No. It comes from peeps who are getting shit in return for their tax dollars.  

whose center is Christian nationalism.

But Christ was a great Rabbi from the Jewish Nation. Surely, there is something in his Gospel which all can benefit by? There is nothing wrong with Christian nationalism because many Nations rose above tribalism only through conversion to Christianity. But Fascism in Italy and Nazism in Germany were anti-clerical.  

It will be hard to disentangle this movement from antisemitism (albeit a version of antisemitism that allies with forces pushing for a Jewish nationalist state in Israel).

It was Jason who did the 'tangling'. We don't need to disentangle his stupid shit.  

Unsurprisingly, proponents of the view that a Christian nation needs protection and defense against

a military invasion or political subversion financed by foreigners are perfectly sensible. By contrast nobody needs defending from vampires or mythical creatures like

liberalism, “globalism” and their supposed decadence,

which is causing dicks to shrink. 

will be marshaled to their most violent actions when the faces of free, secular, tolerant liberal democracy prominently include Jewish ones.

 France has had 6 Jewish Premiers since the Second World War. Nobody cares. Kreisky was Chancellor of Austria for 13 years. So what? Liberal Democracies- including India which has a microscopic Jewish population- have Jewish faces in their Parliaments and Cabinets because all we want from politicians is that they give us value for money on our tax dollar. On the other hand if cats were allowed to stand for election, I bet you this country would be ruled by Persians except when it was being ruled by Siamese. But hairless cats are gross. Still, anything would be better than BoJo. 

Friday, 1 July 2022

Mayank Mishra on the Delhi riots

Mayank Mishra writes in Quint, in regard to the recent Delhi riots- 
Research suggests that slight reduction in the (relative) deprivation of Muslims could be the reason behind this polarisation. The 2014 study by Anirban Mitra of University of Ohio and Debraj Ray of New York University begins with an assumption that: “if a group is relatively poor to begin with, an increase in the average incomes of the group controlling for changes in inequality, must raise violence perpetrated against that group.”
What Mitra & Debraj Ray reported was that when Hindus get richer they are less likely to kill others whereas when Muslims get richer they spend some of their new wealth on killing non Muslims.
Using data of all communal riots between 1950 and 2000 and extrapolating that with NSSO’s per capita monthly expenditure data, they conclude that: “an increase in Hindu prosperity is negatively associated with greater religious fatalities in the near future, while the opposite is true of Muslim prosperity.” Does this conclusion match with what you hear on the ground?
Yes. Muslims attacked Hindus on the first day of the riots. An AAP Councillor and his brother orchestrated the attacks. Then, on the second day, the Hindus brought in people to retaliate. The police joined in. Once a new Police Chief was appointed, the violence stopped. 

The country had had, on an average, nearly 16 communal riots every year, between 1950-1981. The number swelled to 48 every year during 1982-1995.
Why? Muslims were getting richer. Money from Saudi Arabia and the Gulf was coming in. There was more money available for mayhem. Muslim gangsters moved to Dubai or Karachi and received help from the Pakistani ISI to foment trouble. 
The decades of the 1980s and 1990s witnessed heightened agitation for the construction of a Ram temple in Ayodhya and that probably explains the sudden spike in incidents of horrific communal riots.
Because the money was flowing in to cause that spike. 
While the number has come down since then, sporadic episodes of inter-community violence do take place even now, with Delhi being the latest.
In 1992 a riot in the same part of Delhi was swiftly put down because an IFS officer, seeing one of his men being stabbed, drew his gun and started shooting. The rest of his company followed suit. Some 25 Muslims were killed on the spot. After that, the miscreants ran away.

The same thing should have been happened when the first cop was injured. But the Police Chief, who was due to retire, didn't want the bad press. Thus it was only the Hindu retaliation which emboldened the cops to teach the Muslims a lesson. Then a new Police Chief was appointed and police morale was restored.

The authors find out that every one percent increase in “Hindu per capita expenditure is predicted to decrease casualties by anywhere between 3 percent and 7 percent, while the same increase in Muslim per capita expenditure increases casualties by 3-5 percent.” (Per capita monthly expenditure is an indication of how much he/she is earning.)
So, two Hindu academics- perhaps of East Bengali refugee origin- are saying 'Hindus become nicer and nicer as they get richer. Muslims, cretins that they are, try to use increases in income to kill non-Muslims. Then they get stomped.'

Obviously, these Hindu academics had to pretend to be saying the opposite because of 'political correctness' but there is no other explanation for their finding. 

Is this the reason why we are witnessing heightened polarisation all around? Do we know if members of ‘a relatively poor community’ (Muslims) are indeed experiencing an increase in their income?
Everyone is experiencing a rise in income because growth has been quite strong. As predicted by the model, some Muslims in North East Delhi- seeing the police was demoralized- thought it a good idea to start killing Hindus. The very next day they were slaughtered. Whatever economic gains they had made have now disappeared.
As mentioned above, there is evidence of reduction in (relative) deprivation of Muslims. Based on National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO) data, social scientists Sandhya Krishnan and Neeraj Hatekar mapped the growth of the new middle class, according to different social categories, from 1999–2000 to 2011–12.

The authors had included all those who spend USD 2 to USD 10 (roughly Rs 145 to Rs 740) per capita per day, in the new middle class. What stands out is the sharp differential in the growth in size of the new middle class among Muslims and privileged caste Hindus.
According to the NSSO data analysed, while the size of the Muslim new middle class grew by a whopping 86 percent between 1999–2000 to 2011–12, that of the Hindu new middle class went up by 76 percent.
So, according to Debraj Ray & Mitra's prediction, Hindus have become less violence prone- unless they are slaughtered in which case they retaliate if they are the majority- whereas Muslims have become more so- unless the police simply mows them down with bullets.
However, the size of the new middle class of the privileged castes (meaning non-OBC, non-SC and non-ST Hindus) grew by a mere 45 percent in the same period. The privileged castes, it seems, has lagged behind all other social categories. Is this the category that is getting radicalised the most because of a sense of deprivation? Other than anecdotal evidence, we do not have any credible research to conclude that.
This idiot does not get that a group which is already predominantly 'middle class' is going to see slower growth in that respect. What matters is if they are moving into the upper middle class.

What explains the rise in income of Muslims in recent years? In order to understand that, we need a fair idea about the kind the occupations Muslims are engaged in. The Sachar Committee report, constituted during the UPA I to analyse the socio-economic condition of Muslims, gives us some clues. It says: “While the share of Muslim workers engaged in agriculture is much lower than for other groups, their participation in manufacturing and trade (especially for males) is much higher than for other SRCs (socio religious categories). Besides, their participation in construction work is also high.”
The problem with Muslim instigated riots in Hindu majority areas is that poor Muslims have to run away from the Cities to take shelter in rural areas. That is what pushes them back into hopeless poverty. It is happening right now in North East Delhi. Hopefully, the new Police Chief will make it clear that he will shoot Muslims if they start trouble. This will make it safe for Muslims to return to take up remunerative employment. 

The report highlights that, other than construction, the participation of Muslims in retail and wholesale trade, transport, auto repair, manufacturing of tobacco products, textiles and fabricated metal products is quite high. It adds that: “the share of Muslim workers in manufacturing is particularly high in states like Delhi, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, and Rajasthan, where the share is more than 25 percent.”
Thus, smart Muslims want the Police to kill rioters and lock up the ring-leaders. But Hindus want that too. No doubt, there are some psychopaths in every community. We don't want them running amok in the name of protecting our religion. Today they are knifing your neighbor. Tomorrow they will be raping your daughter. 
Now, juxtapose this with the findings of the recent TeamLease study published in the The Economic Times. The headline of the study, ‘Want to be an MBA? Why not electrician’, is quite revealing.
Here are the highlights of the study:
An engineering graduate or an MBA from a below par institute earns almost as much as a trained electrician.
Between 2016 to 2018, the average salary of a trained electrician saw a growth in excess of 40 percent. An MBA with similar year of experience saw his salary rise by 30 percent. However, in the case of an engineering graduate, it was a meagre 10 percent.
It says that the demand-supply gap of skilled workers is going to be quite high in the next five years, pushing their salaries even higher.
We know that a lot of Engineering Colleges are utterly useless. Still, such worthless degrees did have some value on the marriage market. What the author is getting at is the notion that Muslims are happy being electricians. They don't hanker for Engineering degrees. Thus the Muslims are doing better than the Hindus with the result that Hindus started killing them.

This is nonsense. Aggrieved 'High Caste' Hindus with useless degrees take the Hardik Patel route. They demand reservations in Government jobs. Muslims aren't their rival. Rather, it is the Scheduled and Other Backward Castes.

Skilled Work & Notions of ‘Purity & Pollution’
Read about the average occupation of a Muslim together with the findings of the TeamLease survey. Add your own inputs from what you observe in your midst. Be it tailoring, auto repair, skilled construction work or retail trading, Muslims have been dominating these areas.
Hence, a reduction in (relative) deprivation of Muslims in recent years.
Why this skew? The Brahminical order’s excessive emphasis on the notion of ‘purity and pollution’ (even with regard to a person’s vocation) is the reason why there are fewer Hindus in the ranks of skilled workers.
But Muslims have the same caste system. Nobody gives a toss about 'purity and pollution' in Delhi. It is money, not manners, that maketh the man. Plenty of Brahmins in Delhi pull cycle rickshaws and clean toilets and so forth. Returning home, they bathe, do puja and return to 'the Brahminical order'. But Brahmin surgeons and soldiers and gangsters do the same thing. 
Hindus have followed an order that places the pursuit of education above everything else.
Fuck off! Hindus don't give a shit about education. They just want lots of degrees and a cushy Government job from which they can't be sacked and where they can collect bribes. 
Today, it means pursuing a degree to get a decent job.
I think degrees are a signal for the marriage market. You can't get a decent job anywhere in the world if you are working class and have an arts degree. Indeed, your lifetime earnings are likely to be lower. However, people with degrees may be able to give their kids a leg up. That's the real story here. 
Soiling one’s hands has always been looked down upon.
So has smearing your face with shit. 
Muslims, on the other hand, have traditionally been engaged in skilled work.
Only if they came from traditional artisanal sub-castes. You can find high caste Hindu as well as Ashraf Muslim tailors and craftsmen. Often they secured a diploma and had some capital. Their higher status meant they could build up a superior client base. But, speaking generally, they wanted their kids to study STEM subjects or crack the IAS or become a Professor or something of that sort. 

And we know that we are amidst a long period of jobless growth. The country has not been able to create enough jobs to absorb the growing young population.
This, perhaps, has impacted Hindus more than the Muslims. Hence, the growing sense of relative pauperisation among Hindus, and there is a feeling that Muslims are to be ‘blamed’ for their plight.
What the High Caste Hindus complain of is quotas for Hindu S.C and O.B.C candidates. They aren't clamoring for the right to become kasais
One gets such ideas whenever one visits troubled areas and talks to the locals there. Several messages on social media platforms indicate as much.
Now, the question is: what is the political fallout of riots? A 2016 study by three Yale professors suggests that riots almost always adversely impact the parties that draw support from more than one community.
Utter bullshit! The Party that draws support from all communities is the one that has no problem with police officers shooting any and every troublemaker out of hand. Furthermore, a Party which can fuck you up if you don't support it, tends to get everybody's support.
It says: “Does Congress in fact lose votes when riots occur?'
Congress loses votes when- as is currently the case- it is completely shit. But this is true of any political party. Who would have voted BJP if Advani had been its Prime Ministerial candidate? 
Though the results should be interpreted with caution as they are not causally identiļ¬ed, estimates from OLS regressions suggest that it does: the outbreak of one additional riot in the year preceding a state assembly election is associated with a 1.3 percentage point average decline in Congress’s district vote share.
 The paper says 'Using a novel application of the regression-discontinuity design, we show that as-if random victory by candidates representing India’s Congress party in close state assembly elections between 1962 and 2000 reduced Hindu– Muslim rioting. The effects are large. Simulations reveal that had Congress lost all close elections in this period, India would have experienced 11 percent more riots. Additional analyses suggest that Congress candidates’ dependence on local Muslim votes, as well as apprehensions about religious polarization of the electorate in the event of riots breaking out, are what drive the observed effect.'

The authors are not Indian but they are repeating a partisan political claim which however no Indian believes. The truth of the matter is that Congress instrumentalized communal riots for political ends. In contrast to other political parties, Congress- at least in States with 'close assembly elections'- had the power to completely prevent riots by getting likely troublemakers to be put under preventive detention. Only Congress had an incentive in keeping Muslims poor and terrified though, no doubt, some of their gangsters and militants gained wealth and power. Thus instigating a Muslim riot- which would lead to a much bigger backlash- was Congress's favorite trick. Shah Rukh Khan's film 'Raees' depicts what happened when a Congress Minister of Fisheries got a bootlegger to use his contacts in Pakistan to send guns and explosives to stage a terror strike in Surat which, predictably, led to Muslims there getting a battering. What was the ultimate outcome of such shenanigans? Gujarat became a BJP stronghold.

Regression discontinuity design is completely useless for the purpose the authors intend. Why? Congress was the only national party during the period. The Janata Morcha and the first NDA Government were unstable coalitions. Gazetted officers in districts where Congress had a chance of forming a Government knew they had to keep in the goodbooks of the Party's High Command. By contrast, non Congress coalitions were ephemeral. One needed to bide one's time and then stick in the knife when told to do so.

There can be no question that Congress used communal riots to harm opposition administrations. But, after Godhra, this backfired. People no longer believed Muslims were always innocent victims of crazy RSS types. After all, 9/11 had happened. The Indian Parliament had been attacked. The World had come round to the opinion that Muslims be kray kray. If they get a bit of money they want to spend it killing infidels.
Can this result be attributed to polarisation? We test this by examining the relationship between riots and the vote share of Hindu nationalist parties” which “shows that the BJS/BJP saw a 0.8 percentage point average increase in their vote share following a riot in the year prior to an election.”
Which was good for Congress at a time when its main rival was on the Left. More importantly, the Muslim vote was consolidated. 
The study focuses on the period 1962 to 2000, when the Congress was a dominant force in national politics. Will the voting behaviour change now that the BJP has replaced the Congress as the key player in the country’s politics?

Sadly, no. Communal rioting during the nineteen twenties and, later, in the Forties, helped the Muslim League. Not all the gains from electoral democracy are cornered by the winners. 

Gandhi's Salt Tax error

Why did Gandhi choose to protest the Salt tax? One reason is that Motilal and Jinnah  had protested the hike in the tax a few years previously. But there may have been another reason. Gandhi may simply have got the facts wrong. He may that thought the tax was ten times higher than what it actually was. Did villagers believe him? No. That's why the Salt agitation collapsed so quickly. It did not represent a popular demand. Moreover, if you made salt for yourself from the sea, the product turned out to be worse in quality and higher in cost. Gandhi may not have appreciated this because he was a very stupid man. 

Consider this extract from Gandhi's speech at Aslali

Do not be content with merely wearing khadi and plying the spinning. wheel, thinking that you have done all that you could do.

Take the case of your own village: For a population of 1,700, 850 maunds of salt will be required.

 That's over 30,000 kilos. A person should have 2 kg of salt per year. 1700 people should consume 3400 kilos. Cattle need twice as much salt. On the other hand, non acclimatized people who sweat a lot in hot weather would need double or triple what is normally consumed. 

For 200 bullocks, 300 maunds of salt will be required.

That would be 800 kg or less than 30 maunds.  

That is, total of 1,150 maunds of salt will be required.

4,200 kg of salt would be required. It appears the local maund was about half the 'pukka maund'.  

The Government levies a tax of Rs. 1-4 on one pukka maund of salt. Hence, on 1,150 maunds, which is equal to 575 pukka maunds, you pay a tax of Rs. 720.

It would be around 150 Rupees.  There were plenty of lawyers who made more than that in a single day. 

A bullock must be given two maunds of salt. In addition, there are 800 cows, buffaloes and calves in your village. If you give them salt, or if the tanner uses salt for treating hides, or if you use salt as manure, you would be paying that amount of tax in excess of Rs. 720.

Also, if you build your house out of salt, you will have to pay more in tax. 

Can your village afford to pay this amount in taxes every year?

Yes. Obviously. Would they prefer not to pay the tax? Sure. But it was barely noticeable compared to the rents and cesses they had to pay. India still has a salt tax because it raises revenue without people noticing it too much.  

In India, the average income of an individual is calculated at 7 pice

25 Rupees a year. For 1700 people, this would give about 43000 total income. 150 out of that would only be about 2 percent of income. 

or, in other words, hundreds of thousands of persons do not earn even a single pice and either die of starvation or live by begging.

Which is why it was important to raise productivity by improving infrastructure. When Gandhi and his followers were marching to Aslali, they decided not to use the Ellis bridge because it was built by a Britisher. Yet, Indian villages needed roads and bridges so as to get things like salt and so as to be able to sell their agricultural and other surplus. Bridges and roads and police men and armies to defend the border all require money. Taxes supply that money. Gandhi was protesting against a tax that nobody greatly cared about because a few years earlier Motilal Nehru and C.R Das had objected to the raising of the salt tax  to help cover the deficit. They didn't suggest anything to replace it. Indeed, it remains to this day though there was a brief period after independence when Gandhi got his way and it was abolished. 

Even they cannot do without salt. What will be the plight of such persons if they can get no salt or get it at too high a price?

What will be their plight if invaders kill them or enslave them? On the other hand, by embracing Gandhi's one sensible proposal- viz. that Indians should give up sex- poor people would no longer have babies and thus poverty would disappear as would the Indian nation.  

Salt, which sells at 9 pice a maund in the Punjab, salt of which heaps and heaps are being made on the coast of Kathiawar and Gujarat, cannot be had by the poor at less than Re. 1-8-0 a maund.

The problem with making your own salt is that it costs more than the taxed variety. Liaquat Ali Khan abolished the salt tax. Prices went up. Then the Indian Government quietly brought it back in 1953. Apparently, the Indians hadn't got rid of the Salt Bureau and thus needed to have a tax to justify the bureaucracy. The relevant Act states that 'the levy and collection of a cess on salt (is) for the purpose of raising funds to meet the expenses incurred on the salt organisation maintained by Government and on the measures taken by Government in connection with the manufacture, supply and distribution of salt.' You can get rid of all Taxation but if you don't get rid of the Tax office you will have to reintroduce taxes to pay for the tax-collectors. 

What curses the Government may not be inviting upon itself from the poor for hiring men to throw this salt into mud!

The curse of having to continue to rule India. Indeed, Gandhi was helping the Brits by concentrating attention on a meaningless side issue.  

The poor destitute villagers do not have the strength to get this tax repealed. We want to develop this strength.

They didn't have the strength to get Congress to do sensible things. This is because they thought Gandhi was a smart dude.  

A democratic State is one which has authority to abolish a tax which does not deserve to be paid.

This can happen in any sort of State. 

It is one in which the people can determine when a certain thing should or should not be paid.

Until they get invaded or their civilization collapses.  

We, however, do not possess such authority. Likewise, even our supposedly great representatives do not have it. In the Central Legislative Assembly, Pandit Malaviya said that the manner in which Sardar Vallabhbhai was arrested could not be called just; that it was unjust and high-handed.

Patel was arrested to send a signal to Gandhi. He disregarded it and went to jail two months later. The Government banned Congress, jailed a lot of people and started confiscating property. As Nehru says in his 'Discovery of India' this concentrated minds. After 7 or 8 months Gandhi had to come to terms with the Viceroy. Irwin had looked weak earlier. However, Gandhi's attendance of the Second Round Table conference- where he united everybody else against the INC- showed that Irwin had given Gandhi exactly enough rope to hang himself. Henceforth, the Brits would dictate the pace and scope of reform. Moreover, the new Viceroy, Willingdon took a harsh line with Congress. This proved effective. Confiscation of property was a more serious matter than spending a bit of time in jail.  

At Borsad, a few days later, Gandhi made a more impassioned speech.

At one time I was wholly loyal to the Empire and taught others to be loyal.

 A dozen years previously, he had been trying to recruit soldiers for the Brits. They gave him the Kaiser-e-Hind medal for it.  

I sang "God Save the King" with zest and taught my friends and relations to do so. Finally, however, the scales fell from my eyes, and the spell broke. I realized that the Empire did not deserve loyalty. I felt that it deserved sedition.

The penalty for sedition was a bit of time in a comfortable enough prison cell. That of waging war against the King, involved transportation, hard labor or, worse yet, the hangman's noose. Gandhi's loyalty had not been worth much to the Brits. Gujaratis refused to enslist. They chased the old fool away. But Gandhi's sedition was valuable to Viceroys. It made it easier for them to demonstrate to the Indians that they were not ready for freedom. Why? Because their most popular leader was a crack-pot.  

Hence I have made sedition my dharma. I try to explain it to others that while sedition is our dharma, to be loyal is a sin.

Also you must not fuck your wife. That is a terrible sin. As for eating beef or wearing foreign cloth- such things are simply to evil too contemplate.  

To be loyal to this Government, that is to say to wish it well, is as good as wishing ill of the cores of people of India.

Wishes are worth nothing.  

We get nothing in return for the cores of rupees that are squeezed out of the country;

except Defense, Law & Order, infrastructure and Famine Relief and control of contagious diseases and Legislative Councils and a seat at the League of Nations.  

if we get anything, it is the range from Lancashire. To approve the policy of this Government is to commit treason against the poor.

Sadly, it turned out that Gandhi's panaceas- khaddar, 'Basic Education, etc. were money-pits. They harmed the poor.  

You should free yourselves from this latter offence. I believe I have done so.

He was wrong. Spinning cotton, more often than not, added negative value.  

Hence I have become ready to wage a peaceful war against this Government.

Soldiers don't surrender peacefully to the enemy and go meekly into a POW camp.  

I am commencing it by violating the salt law. It is for this purpose that I am undertaking this march. At every place, thousands of men and women have conferred their blessings upon it. These blessings are not showered on me but on the struggle.

Our patience has been severely tried. We must free ourselves from the yoke of this Government and we are prepared to undergo any hardships that we may have to suffer in order to secure Swaraj. It is our duty as well as our right to secure Swaraj.

If so, the Gandhi-Irwin pact was treason.  

I regard this as a religious movement since sedition is our dharma.

whose God is stupidity. 

Every moment I desire the end of the policies of this Government. I have no desire to touch even a single hair of our rulers. But we certainly shall not bow down to them.

Going off, meekly, to jail every now and then may not involve 'bowing down' but it does involve a very high type of obedience. Most people try to avoid being arrested. If this is unavoidable, then they pay a lawyer to mount a vigorous defense. Gandhi's innovation was to cooperate with the police and the magistrates and the penal system while pretending not to cooperate with the British.  

Kindly, therefore, become conscious of your responsibilities and wash away your sins against India. Today we are defying the salt law. Tomorrow we shall

stop defying it.  

have to consign other laws to the waste-paper basket.

Which ones? If Gandhi had said 'we are going to scrap zamindari. Land will belong to the tiller', then the masses would have got behind Congress. The Brits would have had to transfer power to elected legislatures capable of creating a new agricultural order. 

Doing so we shall practice such severe non-co-operation that finally it will not be possible for the administration to be carried on at all.

But everybody knew that Gandhi had tried this once before and had failed miserably. Jailing people or threatening to confiscate their property has a salutary effect.  

Let the Government then, to carry on its rule, use guns against us, send us to prison, hang us. But how many can be given such punishment? Try and calculate how much time it will take a lakh of Britishers to hang thirty cores of persons.

But it took very little time to arrest Congress workers and to ban the organization. Why kill obedient people? What greater obedience is required from a Party which meekly lines up to be hit on the head or to be carted off to jail.  

But they are not so cruel. They are human beings like us and perhaps we would be doing the same things that they are doing if we had been in their position.

The Mughals had a salt tax. It was 5 percent for Hindus and half that for Muslims.  

Man does not have the strength to fight circumstances; the latter could by his actions.

Perhaps this was wrongly transcribed.  

Hence I do not feel that they are to be blamed for this. But I find their policy so bitter, that I would destroy it today if I could. It will be destroyed regardless of whether I am put behind the bars or allowed to remain free.

The Salt tax is still with us.  

I breathe here before you and with every breath that I take, I desire this very thing. I am fully convinced that there is nothing base in it. I act exactly as I believe.

This was the problem. Gandhi was play-acting.  

No one has been able to reply to the complaint I have registered before God and mentioned in my letter to the Viceroy. No one says that the salt tax is just.

Yet, it is still with us today. 

No one says that the expenditure on the army and the administration is justified.

The alternative is anarchy- which hadn't worked out too well for Hindus in the past. Invaders enslaved them.  

No one holds that the policy of collecting land revenue is justifiable, nor indeed that it is proper to extort 20 to 25 cores of rupees from the people after making drunkards and opium-addicts of them and breaking up their homes.

Gandhi does not mention the cruel British policy of subjecting Indian peasants to incessant fellatio and cunnilingus.  

Both foreigners and British officers testify to the fact that all this is true.

Gandhi is lying. Everybody knew that Armies and Police Forces and Education and Sanitation departments have to be paid for by taxes. The alternative is invasion and enslavement.  

However, what can be done about it? Money is required. For what purpose is it required? In order to repress the people.

Gandhi was constantly begging for money. Then he'd piss that money up the wall. Still, his financiers- Dalmia in this case- did very well out of it.  

Recently the Government has appointed all police officers above the rank of constables as officers dealing with salt. As a result of the authority vested in him, even a policeman can arrest me and perpetrate any indignity on me that he likes; if he fails to arrest me he would be guilty of the offence of cowardice.

Irwin gave Gandhi enough rope. Then he arrested him once everybody could see that he was a silly man. Nehru did go to jail for making salt but he later said '  ‘We were bewildered and could not fit in a national struggle with common salt,’ An article in an Indian newspaper stated, ‘It is difficult not to laugh, and we imagine that will be the mood of most thinking Indians.’ Nehru quietly brought back the salt tax which Liaquat had abolished.

Here we find this offence of cowardice which does not exist in any other Act of the Government.

Gandhi was obsessed with cowardice. But sulking in jail is not the act of a brave man. It is the action of a virtue signaling hypocrite.  

Any constable who sees us making salt, who sees us heating a pan of salt water, can arrest us, snatch away the pan and throw away the water. What can he feel in throwing away the salt? In Lansundra near Kapadvanj there is a mound of salt, which has been covered with dust. Why is this so? Why this injustice? It is our dharma to oppose such outrageous conduct and such inhuman policy.

This sort of dharma or drama had led to Hindu enslavement.  If you object to foreigners ruling you, kill them or try to kill them. Don't pretend you are a courageous soldier if all you do is throw a tantrum and then go meekly off to jail. 

If you feel that I should be grateful to you for the purse you have presented to me, I should say I am grateful. But my hunger will not be satisfied with money.

There we have it! Gandhi wanted money! Money is 'non-violent' politics. But if money is spent on sulking, not fighting, then enslavement will continue.  

I desire that all of you men and women should enroll yourselves in this sacrificial movement. It is my cherished desire that all students studying in this high school who are above the age of fifteen, and all teachers too, should enroll themselves.

Gandhi thought education, like modern medicine, was a fraud. But his own 'Nai Talim' was utterly shit. Kids can't earn enough money by spinning cotton to pay for their own education.  

Wherever revolutions have taken place, that is, in Japan, China, Egypt, Italy, Ireland and in England, students and teachers have played a prominent role. In Europe, war broke out on the 4th of August in 1914, and when I reached England on the 6th of that same month, I found that students had left colleges and marched out with arms.

Why did students not march out in dhotis to say 'boo to Kaiser! He is violating dharma! We will fast to death unless he stops being so mean.' ? To be fair, Gandhi did offer to enlist on the British side and did try to recruit soldiers for them.  By contrast, Bertrand Russell went to jail for his Pacifist convictions. 

Here, in this righteous war, truth, nonviolence and forgiveness are the weapons.

In the sense that a powder puff and lipstick are weapons- sure.  

The consequence of using such weapons can only be beneficial,

But they hadn't been. India didn't get what Ireland and Egypt and Afghanistan got in 1922. Why? Gandhi cravenly surrendered and went off meekly to jail.  

and it is the duty of every student and teacher to take part in such a struggle. At a time when the final struggle is being waged in order to free India from slavery, any student or teacher who takes shelter in his home or in the school will be regarded as having acted as a traitor to his country.

Gandhi was shot by people who considered him a traitor to his country. This was a mistake. A fool is not a traitor. He is merely a fool.  

Will you be engaged in learning poems by heart or in doing sums at a time when a person like Sardar is behind the bars?

If you are sensible, yes.  

Just as when a house is on fire everyone comes out to extinguish it, similarly you should all come out to put an end to these sufferings of our country.

But Gandhian shite increased the sufferings of the country.  

Those who say that Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Jews and others have not united speak an untruth.

The Muslims and Hindus had indeed united in 1922. Then Gandhi unilaterally surrendered for a scruple which may exist in Jain-Vaishnavism but which does not exist in Islam or most Hindu sects. Then it was discovered that the Viceroy had been using all his influence on the Khilafati side. In other words, the Viceroy had actually done something for the Indian Muslims while Gandhi had pumped and dumped them. Thus by 1930, Hindus and Muslims had parted ways. Indeed, after the Salt debacle, Gandhi had to attend the Second Round Table Conference where, much to the delight of the 'die-hard' Tories, he succeeded in uniting all the minorities and even the non-Brahmin Madrasis (who were the 97 percent majority in the Presidency) against the INC. The result was that the Brits were able to dictate the scope and pace of constitutional reform. They then unceremoniously dumped people like Sapru.  

This salt tax applies equally to all. If it is the case that whereas Hindus have to pay this tax, Muslims can get themselves exempted from it, they may very well do so. If anyone can save himself in this manner, I shall have to modify my dharma. I am prepared to get this tax abolished even if I have to prostrate myself on the ground in order to do so. Why should not everyone unite in order to have that tax abolished from which even a buffalo and a cow cannot escape?

The answer was that if Government revenue went down, then it would reduce military, police and administrative expenditure. This would mean worsening conditions for the poorest in the countryside. Banditry would be pervasive. The Brits would make money selling guns to War lords. India would become like China in the Thirties- civil war, invasion and famine would stalk the land.  

By prostrating myself on the ground for the sake of removing the hardships of cores of people was of no avail. I have spared no efforts in drafting appeals. Everyone knows that I know how to use polite language. I have become a revolutionary when politeness and persuasion proved infructuous.

But so did throwing a tantrum and then going meekly to jail. This is not the behavior of a revolutionary. It is the conduct of a hypocritical poltroon.  

I find peace in describing myself as a revolutionary

Politicians like telling lies. It gives them peace and tranquility. On the other hand, I find peace in describing myself as a Beyonce impersonator.  

and I practice my dharma to some extent. In a revolution which is calm, peaceful and truthful,

and thus not Gandhi's hysterical play-acting 

you should get yourselves enrolled regardless of the religion to which you belong.

Only if this will make you more secure and prosperous. But Gandhi wasn't offering that. He was offering an autarkic world where nobody would have sex and there would be no trade or division of labor and no army to expel invaders and no police to kill bandits. Why did Gandhi advocate this shite? The answer is he believed in re-incarnation. If you live a celibate and joyless life you will be reborn on a paradisal planet where there is no sex and no dirty books or indeed entertainment of any type.  

If you enlist yourselves with sincerity and if you can keep up your courage, the salt tax will have been abolished, this administration will have come to an end and all the hardships enumerated in the letter to the Viceroy as well as those which have not been so enumerated will have to cease. Then when new administrative policies are to be formulated, the time will be ripe for solving communal disputes and satisfying everyone.

What actually happened? When the Brits left, there was massive ethnic cleaning and population exchange. No 'minority' was satisfied.  

I invite you all in the name of God. Even the Britishers will join in this movement. Will they perpetrate many injustices in order to justify one? And will they put innocent men behind the bars, whip them and hang them?

But Gandhi and his crew had the habit of pleading guilty. But their offense was sedition not 'waging war on the King Emperor' and so they were spared any great hardship in jail.  

God can never be identified with that which is untruth, that which is injustice.

God can't be identified. Gandhi did not understand theology.  

It is as plain as I am speaking to you here and now. I see equally clearly that the days of this administration are numbered and total Swaraj is in sight.

Jinnah had spoken out against the rise in the Salt Tax. By 1930, he had moved to England believing his political future in India was over. Gandhi's stupidity gave Jinnah back his role in India. Jinnah imitated Gandhi's tactics and thus emerged as the more successful politician. We can't say India is Gandhian. We can say Pakistan is the creation of Jinnah more than anybody else.  

The Goddess of Independence is peeping in and wished to garland us.

It had peeped in in 1922. Gandhi unilaterally surrendered.  

If at such a time we run away, who will be as unworthy as we?

Run away from the oppressor's jail cell. Don't just talk about Revolution. Try to bring it about in Reality. Or rather, don't. You will be shot and, in any case, most Revolutions turn out to be fucking horrible. 

Still, there is one lesson from the Salt Satyagraha which 'all who run may read'- viz get your maths right. If the Salt tax represents 2 percent not 20 percent of disposable income, don't bother with it. Find an issue which matters more to ordinary people. Also don't confuse sulking in a jail cell with being a courageous soldier. The thing is simply silly.  

Thursday, 30 June 2022

Shubha Ghosh's Sen-tentious insanity

Shubha Ghosh, a Law Professor, tried to apply Sen's silly notion of 'niti' and 'nyaya' to intellectual property. 

The proper analysis is as follows. Economic policy (which is what niti, contra Sen, actually means)  may want to promote various types of innovation and thus create intellectual property of certain types through Legislation or International Treaty or administrative fiat. As technology changes, such provisions may change. Thus when hardware was what seemed important, it was difficult to patent stuff embedded in software.

 Poorer countries may not expect to do much scientific innovation but may give trademarks to artisanal produce. Thus, economic policy would shape intellectual property law. However, under international treaties, some things may be imposed. Here a legal argument may be made why a particular type of intellectual property right should or should not hold for equitable or other reasons. This is where 'Nyaya' maxims come in. They represent a hermeneutic of treaty or other such written law and make legal arguments defeasible. 

This is merely what already obtains. Can Sen-tentious shite add anything? 

As background to the discussion of The Bhagavad Gita, several concepts are worth explaining. The first is that of dharma, which is often translated as “law.”

The Greeks translated it as eusebia which is pietas in Latin and piety in English. Dharma is that which is piously observed and upheld. This may involve a particular 'Niyam' (Rule, Observance) but, equally, it may not. The consequences of such actions are immaterial. One reason for this is that outcomes are unknown in advance. But the reason given by Scripture is that the actions themselves are, in some sense, illusory. In the Gita, God is the only efficient cause. We live in an 'Occassionalist' Universe.  

But, as Professor Don Davis emphasizes,

Davis thinks the law is the theology of ordinary life. Theologians reject this view. The ordinary life of people of different religions, or no religion at all, may be similar. But their beliefs about the after-life and their religions observances, which are by no means part of ordinary life, are very different. 

dharma means law in the broadest sense, not limited to positive law or to the workings of particular institutions such as courts or legislatures. Instead, dharma means law which includes social mores, norms, customs, and expectations.

So, it does not mean law at all. A dharmic individual ignores all sorts of stupid and unjust and oppressive laws. Indeed, he may exit a particular jurisdiction so as to go and settle in a Wilderness, where there is no Rule of Law, precisely for this reason. That which he piously upholds or observes is his dharma. But this observance may involve a 'law-less' choice sequence.   

A concept related to dharma is that of karma, loosely translated as “right action.”

No. Actions can be bad as well as good. Karma is the sum total of past actions which determine what will happen in the future- even after death.  

What makes an action right, as opposed to a wrong action that can be punished, is the concept of law as dharma.

No. For Theists, God makes an action right or wrong or punishable or laudatory, but only if he wishes to do so. God is the only efficient cause in the Universe. Ghosh Babu is not understanding that, in the Gita, Krishna is the Lord Almighty. He is thinking 'Krishnaji must be Professor innit? Just he dropped in to chat with Arjuna.' However, this is not what the Gita, a Hindu Scripture, says. All occurs, all exist, by the Supreme Lord's sovereign and solitary Will.  

Karma embodies a form of consequentialism whereby right action leads to right results and fruits while bad action leads to punishment.

Not in the Gita. You can be totes wicked and yet be saved purely by God's grace. Causation is an illusion. To be on the safe side, worship God and do your duty without attachment to the fruit of action. This doesn't mean God can't exalt an atheistic and evil person while not doing anything for a nice theist, except in so far as He wishes to do so as a pure and gratuitous gift.  

But karma is understood in relationship to dharma.

No. It was explained in this manner in the Bhagavas Gita to a heteronomous 'agent', rather than an autonomous 'principal'. But, in the Mahabharata, there is also the Vyadha Gita which applies to people who decide what they want to do according to their own interests. 

The relationship between dharma and karma dictates what it means for a person to be in the world and interact with others.

No. Both are delusionary or sublatable concepts which, in any case, nobody except God could understand.  

Right action depends upon law in the broadest sense, going beyond mandates and statements of lawmakers.

No. It depends on piety but what piety depends on depends on God.  

As Professor Davis explains, “Individuals act, but they act in social roles that only collectively define their worldly persona.”

No. Individual acts are done in personal roles. Social acts are done in social roles. The Judge acts as an individual when he orders pizza. He acts as a judge when he pronounces judgment.  Fuck knows what a 'worldly persona' is. Davis has a worldly persona as a stupid Professor of a shite subject. But he may be a charming harmonica player. Still, his worldly persona is shitty because he is writing crap about a country he does not know and a religion he does not understand. 

Action here refers to acts towards others. But often these acts between people are mediated by things and, according to Professor Davis, the relationship between individuals and things is fragmented. Property defines this set of relationships, and the fragmentation is transparent in the range of objects that fall into property relationships.

Meaningless shite defines nothing. We know what property means. We don't know what 'set of relationship if defines' because property can't talk. It can't write. It can't define anything. Nor can Davis. He has shit for brains. What he means is that there are different property claims over things. These may be 'fragmented'. They may not.  

Coincidentally for the purposes of this paper, Professor Davis discusses a music downloading website as an example. On such a website, there can be tens of thousands of property interests with respect to the multitude of files uploaded and downloaded.

No. Either everything is either public domain or leased or owned in some manner by the website or else the thing does not represent property. It represents theft.  

Similarly, in the Hindu concept of satva (the equivalent of property),

He means 'svatva', not satva.  

relationships can have many dimensions and many claimants. Professor Davis describes the contrast between satva and Western notions of property as follows: “In the Hindu view . . . property is a token of relationships, while [in the West] relationships are tokens of property and contract, the objectification of the will and the freedom to transact those objects through agreements.”

This is nonsense. A thing is either svavtva or asvatva- owned or not owned though there can be a question about property known to have been owned but which is not currently vested in anybody. But such ideas exist in all legal systems. In India, I own this, it is vested in me, and then on receipt of consideration of consideration, I relinquish ownership of it. The person who paid me can vest the property in themselves or do something else with it. A question arises if no consideration has passed. Is it 'benami'? Does it still belong to the original owner? In whom has ownership been vested? If so, it it property held in trust? These are justiciable matters.  

Satva is about relationships, but these relationships need to be understood against dharma.

Not unless there is a prior stipulation and the property is held at least partially in trust. There really is no big mystery here. The English had similar things and they quickly adapted their legal system so as to accommodate various different types of Indian property law.  The Law is a service industry. The 'stationary bandit' makes a profit by providing different types of Law for different types of customers. Thus, Hindu Navya-Nyaya pundits helped the Brits codify a Hindu Law while Muslim savants helped them codify a Shia, Sunni, and Ismaili Law. Zoroastrians had a particularly crazy type of Law to escape which they had to use complicated deeds and Trust instruments on the English pattern. That's one reason why Parsis were so prominent in the Legal field in the mid-Nineteenth Century. One big reason Indians wanted representative Legislatures was to further reform their various Religious legal codes. 

On this point, Professor Davis identifies an unequal and unjust side to Hindu notions of property. As he observes, rules of inheritance and ownership reinforce an unegalitarian social order, which in turn is justified by Hindu law.

By contrast, when the Duke of Westminster dies, all his property is distributed among the residents of Westminster. What waccy baccy was Davis smoking? Speaking generally, Anglo-Saxon inheritance law was more not less inegalitarian than Hindu or Mohammadan law. That's one reason the English speaking people developed Capitalism more quickly and thoroughly.  

To counter this, Professor Davis advocates a more complete notion of property—one not rigidly grounded in social conventions and traditions, but in the Hindu precepts of persons and relationships. “To say that property has only socially determined value neglects the more purposive, expressly transcendental value imparted to property through conscious theological agendas, broadly defined.”

But anybody can do something like this when writing a will or creating a trust.  

I take Professor Davis to mean that property relationships need to be understood against a broad concept of dharma.

There were plenty of rich dudes in England who had similar concerns. Lawyers drafted their wills or created Trusts for them.  Early and Middle Victorian Christianity insisted on a subordinate role for married women. But clever lawyers found ways for women to protect at least some of their property from spendthrift husbands. Finally, in the late Victorian period, the Law was changed so as to give married women a better deal in this respect. Something similar happened in India as elected Legislatures gained more power. 

In the remainder of this article, I build on these foundational concepts of Hindu law to make the case for a form of consequentialism in intellectual property, one that takes to heart the relationships that undergird intellectual property.

This is meaningless. Policy regarding property rights may be consequentialist. But property itself isn't. It is merely a predicate.  

The dialogue between Arjuna and Krishna animates the consequentialist approach Arjuna’s choice to go into battle seems much graver than the relatively mundane decisions of actors within the intellectual property system, since whether or not to kill presents a graver question than whether or not to copy. But the dilemma facing Arjuna is not simply a matter of whether to engage in battle. After all, Arjuna is a warrior. He signed up for that role and has to act within that role. The question before Arjuna is not about killing, but about the consequences of acting even if the cause is justified. That question is no different from what confronts someone acting or designing within an intellectual property system.

But we know the answer to the question is 'worship God and do your duty without attachment to the fruit'. But, this was already known. There is no 'apoorvata' and hence 'meaning' here.  It is the essence of piety to worship God and to do unpleasant duties (e.g. killing people) without taking a sadistic joy in the act. A thing done for your own pleasure is not a duty. It may be considered a perquisite. There too, don't make a glutton of yourself. Show a pious restraint. 

? Krishna, in the guise of Arjuna’s charioteer, urges him to fight, not because the ends are just, but because it is his obligation to act.

Why? Because Krishna is God and God's plan for the world involves Arjuna killing his true eldest brother.  

In Krishna’s mind, the weighing of consequences detracts from the task at hand and the obligations of the warrior in battle.

No. Krishna is a loving and merciful Lord. The Gita is dramatic. A particular sequence of actions have to be completed for a particular result to be obtained. This is very artfully done. Stupid people like Sen and Ghosh are incapable of understanding this.  

Arjuna’s dilemma can be applied to many contemporary situations. A doctor must decide how and to whom to render care.

No. She sees registered patients. An administrator schedules their appointments. The doctor has to diagnose and prescribe in exactly the manner upheld by her profession. She isn't supposed to experiment or deviate from best practice. 

A judge must decide on the correct punishment, including the ultimate punishment of the death penalty.

No. A judge must decide the ratio- the point of law- applicable to the case. Determinations of fact may be done by the Jury or be agreed by stipulation etc.  

An attorney must decide which client to serve.

Not necessarily. A cab rank principle may apply.  

For an inventor, action might lead to a new item being created. Such a person may be driven by many passions. The urge might be spiritual; it might also flow from a sense of pleasure or trivial amusement. Acting to create forecloses other options, such as direct service to others through education, provision of personal needs, or developing interpersonal relationships. But when the new item is created, the inventor must decide what to do with it. Shall it be given away for free? To the highest bidder?

But this is true for the producer of anything at all. Should I give away my farts for free or can I charge people for smelling them?  

As with Arjuna, the critical question is how to decide, not simply what to decide.

In which case the question involves deciding whether or not to toss a coin or consult an expert. But this is not the crucial question at all. It is 'do I invent' or 'do I do something else'?  

Arjuna’s doubts stem from not understanding how to decide to act.

No. It stems from his prevision of the outcome which in turn was caused by a Gandharva's gift of 'chaksuchi vidya' which however did not vest in him (being asvatva) till he ceased to be master of himself (and thus was himself asvatva) .  

Since Arjuna confronts a question of life or death, we can posit an analogous problem for the inventor that illustrates the relevance of Arjuna’s doubts to intellectual property law. Suppose our hypothetical inventor conceives of a wonder drug that can cure disease and comfort the suffering. Should this person invent the drug?

YES! Fuck is wrong with you?  

Is there an obligation to invent? Or can the inventor decide that such an invention would not be desirable because of the consequences of overpopulation or the strain on economic resources?

No. Don't be so fucking silly. It is obvious that if one guy can invent a wonder drug, some other guy can invent wonder-wheat or whatever.  

If the drug is invented, should it be made available to everyone or should we countenance the death of some who cannot have access because of lack of ability to pay, lack of medical care systems for drug distribution, or failure to provide alternatives such as generics?

These are economic questions. The inventor is not required to answer them. He invents the thing. An entrepreneur makes it commercially available. If economies of scope and scale are available, the thing may be a 'natural monopoly' in which case allocative efficiency is achieved through universal provision paid for through price or service provision discrimination of a graduated Income tax.  

Is there a duty to provide the drug once invented? Or is the provision contingent on other factors, such as ability to pay?

These are matters of policy which economists and jurists and politicians can decide though the market may make a better charitable or other allocation.  

These questions ask us to confront deeper choices about how to organize invention and distribution.

No they don't. We know that that we will mess up if we try to 'organize invention and distribution'. Look at COVID. China and Russia may have done the above but their vaccination does not seem to be very good. In China's case this has meant stringent lockdowns while the UK and the US enjoyed much greater freedom. India was demanding a comprehensive TRIPS waiver but seems to have walked back that demand. It turned out that voluntary licensing had been more than adequate and the real bottlenecks lay elsewhere. In other words, you had to sweat the small stuff. This is ideographic. There were no 'deeper choices' based on questions of distribution because distribution was a proxy for underdevelopment. Getting rid of intellectual property won't help you if you don't have enough real property and technological and manufacturing capacity. Coase's theorem says who owns what doesn't matter too much provided people are free to do deals. Sen-tentious questioning of everything under the sun merely wastes time. 

With intellectual property, the parallels to Arjuna’s dilemma point to the ethical underpinnings of technology and its role in social progress.

This is nonsense. God aint going to resolve any and every dilemma about intellectual property by personally intervening and showing selected people his Cosmic Form. There are no 'ethical underpinnings' to anything. There may be an ethical superstructure of laws and incentives and penalties. But that superstructure may be useless. The underpinnings of technology are purely scientific and economic. If you don't got no money and no smart Scientists, intellectual property does not matter because you neither have it nor can buy it.  

A dominant assumption is that progress and innovation are the primary goals of intellectual property.

No. This guy may have heard about the H-bomb. That's a closely guarded intellectual property. We don't want ISIS using H-bombs on us because we don't want to die. Death tends to put a damper on progress and innovation.  

Such a view echoes the poet T.S. Eliot, who, according to Sen, interprets Krishna’s advice to Arjuna as follows: “‘And do not think of the fruit of action./ Fare forward.’ . . . ‘Not fare well,/ But fare forward, voyagers.’”

Eliot was a cretin. Krishna is saying 'I am the Lord God Creator. I take on your sins and grant you Liberation.' The fact is, unless death supervenes, everybody 'fares forward'. We can't go back in time.  

To Eliot’s thinking, people should create and invent without consideration of consequences.

Fuck off! Eliot wasn't keen on peeps inventing doomsday machines. Indeed, he wasn't too happy even with useful stuff like TVs and transistor radios.  Anyway, by the Forties, Governments were intervening directly to get smart peeps to invent stuff useful to National Defense and Economic growth. There is a large Government footprint on R&D though some of that research may be done by Private Corporations. 

The act of creation itself that produces the new thing is what matters. In this way, invention “fares forward” and progresses.

But so does ignorance. Time has an arrow. There can be institutional amnesia concerning how a particular technology should be implemented. Apparently, the US military-industrial complex, 'forgot' how to make some crucial component of the H-bomb and had to work hard to recover that knowledge.  

The goal is indiscernible and irrelevant. My characterization of intellectual property in nonconsequentialist terms is counterintuitive. After all, creation does not occur randomly. A poet wants to write a specific poem, and a chemist wants to isolate a particular compound. Invention and creation are thus goal-oriented. But the shibboleth is not espousing randomness of any kind; rather, Eliot’s poetic rendition of Krishna’s encouraging Arjuna is in opposition to consequentialist thinking.

In the sense of being stupid or meaningless- sure.  

Dr. J. Robert Oppenheimer quoted Krishna’s words during the first detonation of the atomic bomb in the New Mexico desert: “I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.”21 As for technology, Dr. Oppenheimer in his own words stated a version of Krishna’s admonition against consequentialism: “When you see something that is technically sweet, you go ahead and do it and you argue about what to do about it only after you have had your technical success.”

Look at Ukraine. It gave up nuclear weapons. That turned out to be a swell idea- right? Oppenheimer was talking about a situation where the Govt. was spending a lot of money on anything which would kill the enemy on a bigger scale. The atom bomb wasn't particularly lethal but it did have a shock and awe component.  

Satirist Tom Lehrer expressed this sentiment in more stark and striking terms in a song about another rocket scientist: “Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down? That’s not my department. (says Wernher von Braun).”

But 'Dr. Strangelove' did keep the Cold War from turning Hot. Ukraine should have kept its nukes. 

Clarifying matters of language between the deontic, utilitarian, and consequentialist approaches Scholars of intellectual property are familiar with deontic, or moral rights, justifications for intellectual property which are framed in opposition to utilitarian justifications.

Since there are both deontic and consequentialist and Aristotelian and Marxian and Gandhian arguments for and against every thing, such distinctions don't matter at all. It is foolish to say there is tension between a deontological approach and a consequentialist approach when there is always a deontological argument for any given consequentialist prescription and vice versa. Philosophy is utterly useless. India looked a fool for its ideological approach to TRIPs.  The facts on the ground contradicted its a priori argument. Coase's theorem rules. Sen-tentious shite drools. 

But my argument in this paper rejects a purely moral rights view of intellectual property that would posit the rights of the creative and inventive person as the principal foundation for intellectual property law and policy.

Then this dude's argument is shit. Either there is an incentive for inventing or there isn't. If there isn't, invention will happen elsewhere. Your country will turn into a shithole. It is a different matter that the incentive mechanism to reward invention can differ but so long as there is a link between invention and reward the precise nature of the mechanism matters little. Moreover, the mechanism design has to be ideographic. If markets are under developed, market based mechanisms would be useless. Thus, in the Eighteenth Century, Princes might directly reward inventors and then use the State machinery to implement the innovation. By the middle of the nineteenth century markets were well enough developed in some parts of the world for patent law to be enforceable through market mechanisms- i.e. contracts re. licensing were enforceable.  

 I am not supporting a utilitarian basis for intellectual property either. Utilitarianism would base policy on aggregating the interests of a wide range of actors beyond those of the inventor.

The plain fact is that mechanism design in this area has to be ideographic not nomothetic or a priori. It has to be based on what actually exists on the ground and the direction in which tech innovation is moving. Prior to the Eighties, a lot of innovation was done under Government sponsorship. But there was a lack of dynamism in developing and applying that tech. The same problem arose in some big Corporations where the R&D department was disconnected to marketing and product development. Disrupting the market by letting small companies- e.g. Microsoft, Apple etc- grow rapidly at the expense of both the Public sector and the moribund Conglomerate sector turned out to be a dynamite idea. The Soviets had to cry Uncle and get rid of Communism. Yet, in 1970, many thought the Soviets would be ahead in network computers. Nobody guessed that Taiwan might become a powerhouse for chip production thanks to f.d.i and licensing.  

My approach overlaps with utilitarianism only to the extent that people other than inventors matter for designing intellectual property. But I am skeptical about reducing people to utilities and interests. That is one reason why I am equally critical of utilitarian theories of intellectual property. Additionally, a utilitarian justification leads to exactly the same error Dr. Oppehneimer cautioned against: technical success first, consideration of consequences second.

What is the alternative? Consideration of consequences first- i.e. an endless discussion of the cake's ingredients and proposals for how it will be divided up and actual baking of anything.  

Consider the following question: is technical success in developing a new product justified on utilitarian grounds?

If the product is utile- yes.  

The new product is justified if aggregate utilities increase.

We don't know aggregate utilities. We only know if the thing is utile. If it is, we make a ceteris paribus assumption. But we can omit doing anything of the sort. The plain fact is if you invent a product which is shit compared to what already exists, hardly anyone will buy it. So the thing won't be produced.  

The problem is that having something new is, in most instances, going to increase utility.

No. Most new stuff turns out to be shit. Some new stuff can be modified till it stops being shit. Then economies of scope and scale become available and only then does it prevail in the market.  

A new item means more choices, and in a utilitarian framework, more choices are a good thing. In some rare situations, the invention might be an unalloyed bad, such as a harmful chemical.

Which may have some beneficial use. This is about product development and market research and so forth.  

In other situations, there may be a mix of harms and benefits. But given the uncertainties over harms, the prospect of the new product will bias the utilitarian approach expressed by Dr. Oppenheimer. As an alternative to a rigid form of utilitarianism, I argue for a view that considers consequences in a more precise and nuanced way.

But that view is useless. Consider my own career path. Back in the Nineties, I developed a more precise and nuanced view of twerking. Sadly, instead of becoming as famous a Beyonce, I remained un-honored and unsung. Why? Because, unlike Beyonce, I'm as ugly as shit.  

Arjuna is right to have his doubts, and Krishna may seem to have tunnel vision in advising Arjuna to simply follow his duty as a warrior.

Krishna is God. He has a plan for the world. Arjuna gains by playing his part in it. There is no 'tunnel vision' here.  

At a later point, Krishna says that to know dharma is very very fucking difficult. Nobody knows their true duty. There is neither 'consequentialism' nor 'deontology' here. There is just an admonition to worship God and to adopt an austere type of piety which involves detachment from the 'fruits' of action. Live like a monk and concentrate your mind only on God. That's the message of the Gita. It isn't some lame shit Sen plucked out of his ass. 

Reconciling Arjuna’s and Krishna’s positions In the remainder of this section, I address how to reconcile Arjuna’s positions with Krishna’s. My answer serves as the basis for understanding intellectual property presented in section two. Following one’s duty and basing actions on consequences are not mutually exclusive. The positions of Krishna and Arjuna reflect the two different notions of justice (niti and nyaya) discussed earlier. Niti is justice as organizational propriety and behavioral correctness. It entails acting on rules for proper action at any cost.

Nope. Niti is policy. It entails doing evil shit- e.g. lying that your Guru's son has been killed so your Guru becomes demoralized, or killing your enemy when he is trying to repair his chariot- but that's cool provided that's what God wants you to do. But only God knows if this is so. Ultimately, Salvation is the Lord's gratuitous gift. Vaishnava Theism is exactly the same as Augustinian or Islamic theism. God matters, Philosophy does not.  

Krishna illustrates niti when he urges Arjuna to perform his duty for its own sake.

But Krishna admits that Arjuna can choose a different 'niti'. Instead of being a soldier, he can- like Krishna's elder brother- walk away from the conflict and take up agriculture. Alternatively, he can become a monk. Krishna himself has the epithet- 'the one who flees the battlefield'. Only if Arjuna wants to be an 'agent' not a 'principal' should he do what Krishna says. But that is precisely what Arjuna wants! He desires to know and obey the 'Lord of Yoga'. Since God loves Arjuna, he gets this outcome- but it is a gratuitous gift of the Lord.  

Arjuna’s consequentialist position is also an example of niti as he seeks the correct act in order to reach the correct result.

No. Arjuna can't be a consequentialist because he is a Theist. He does not want 'salvation by works' but 'salvation by Grace' which is wholly gratuitous. Love is like that only. Rama does not want Sita to give him hugs and kisses just because he defeated Ravana. He wants her to give him hugs and kisses due to she lurves him and likes giving him kisses.  

Nyaya, on the other hand, is justice as a comprehensive sense of the good.

No it isn't. Hindus associate Nyaya with Yama- the King of the Dead. Life is Yami or Yamuna. We don't want Justice, which is what you get after death, we want Life on a more ample basis. Hinduism has no 'comprehensive sense of the good' because none exists. What is good when you are young isn't what is good when you are old. Be a student in boyhood and adolescence. Be a householder when in the prime of your life. Retire to the forest as you get old. Finally renounce all ties and become a wandering mendicant. One may say 'Moksha' or 'Liberation from the wheel of rebirth' is the ultimate good. But Theists say that they would prefer to be reborn in a humble capacity to serve the Lord.  

It includes not only good results but also good means, it allows for options outside of rules for proper action if such options themselves are beneficial. Nyaya is more flexible than niti in the conception of justice and, according to Sen, is more attuned to actual institutions and experiences of human lives.

Sen is a cretin. Hindus say, 'don't go to Court. Make a discretionary arrangement.' Justice can wait till you are dead. But, finding God, by Divine Grace, you are removed from the Kingdom of Death. Christianity has exactly the same idea. Cleaving to Christ, or Krishna, Death is depassed. 

 Justice as nyaya is attuned to the context within which people must live and act. Both Arjuna and Krishna espouse positions that reflect justice as nyaya.

No. Krishna is God. He is going to save some horrible sinners by his gratuitous gift of Grace. God is not constrained to any Human notion of Justice. Indeed, theists believe God's Justice is Mercy and Forgiveness. From time to time, Mummy says 'naughty baby'. But Mummy gives baby plenty of kisses and baby chortles with delight.  

 As Gandhi emphasizes in the introduction to his translation of the Gita, Krishna advocates not only for the right action, but also for the right reason.

Gandhi told Gujarati peasants that they had a duty to go die in battle first for the King Emperor and then for the Turkish Caliph. They told him to fuck off. Say what you like, Gujaratis are a sensible people. 

In the battle against the Kauravas, Arjuna is correcting an injustice (the deceit of his cousins in appropriating the land).

No he isn't. He is fulfilling God's plan which is also that of his true eldest brother. The fact is, if Karna reveals his true parentage, then he is the head of the Pandavas. He can make any deal he likes with his pal Duryodhana. But Karna wants the battle to go ahead so that a lot of illustrious warriors can get to Heaven by being slain in honorable combat.  

Ghosh gasses on in Sen-tentious vein till he gets to the meat of his article- which turns out not to be meat but shit- 

...two practical aspects of intellectual property law and policy. The first pertains to political activism and intellectual property;

Political activism is shit. India fucked up by demanding TRIPs waivers on ideological grounds. They had to compromise because it was obvious that the existing regime was better. There would have been no voluntary licensing such as helped India greatly during COVID had the Indian position been previously enshrined in law.  

the second, to intellectual property law reform. One idea to draw from the discussion of Hindu law in section one is the concept of action which contrasts starkly with the labor that underlies intellectual property.

Hindus had the same concept of action as everybody else. What Sen calls action is shitting higher than your arsehole.  

Drawing on John Locke, many theorists of intellectual property see labor as a form of appropriation. A person acts upon the material world and appropriates things as property in order to obtain value from the ownership. In the Gita, particularly Krishna’s concept of action without consideration of reward, labor is not a form of appropriation, but a form of service.

This is foolish. 'Appropriation' here is the Greek concept of 'Oikeiosis' as developed by the Stoics. But this is a type of 'natural' belonging which can broaden into something universal and cosmopolitan. How? Well if you feel you 'naturally' belong to Christ, or Krishna, then you are uninterested in the rewards you get. You consider yourself bound to serve the Lord more and more. You may end up giving away all your possessions and living like a monk. Sen was an atheist. He couldn't admit this. He thought there was some stupid philosophical debate even though the Mahabharata explicitly says there was no such thing. Why? Arjuna was a meathead. Nice guy, but not big in the brains department. Krishna was hella smart but even he could not explain what dharma is because the thing is too complicated for mortal understanding.  

One acts not to capture value, but to serve.

If you belong, heart and soul, to the Creator who is also your Personal Lord God and Savior- sure. The bliss gained by the Theist from knowing she loves and is loved unconditionally by the all Merciful and all Provident, is qualitatively different from the sour gnosis of the philosophers or T.S Eliot's sad, masturbatory, shite.  

Service may also be the product of seeking fruits and benefits. But that is a question of whether to act according to consequences (like Arjuna), or without regard for results (like Krishna). Action under Hindu law is within dharma, based on one’s relationship to the world and to others. But these relationships can be complex. In this section, I address two situations. The first regards action in a political context; the second regards action within the ethical order against which intellectual property arises. Through these examples, I illus trate

the great stupidity of the deracinated Indian atheist or virtue signaller. 

the arguments of section one about consequentialism and the implications for right action.

We know the consequence of Sen-tentious shite. Everybody involved has their time  wasted.  This is cool if you are a low IQ Bengali academo-bureacrat. It isn't cool, if you don't want to fucking die from COVID or whatever. 


A. Intellectual Property Civil Disobedience Protest against the strengthening of intellectual property laws at the expense of users arises from many sources.

But the onus is on property owners to safeguard their own property. Approaching the court costs money and enforcing judgments costs even more money. Thus Coase's theorem prevails. Who owns what doesn't matter too much provided there is enough freedom to contract and economic mechanisms are well enough developed.  

Computer programmers, often labeled as hackers, expose flaws in encryption that restrict access to code. Even a cursory search on sites like YouTube reveals anonymous posters challenging copyright laws through uploads of copyrighted works. Aaron Swartz, computer programmer and internet activist, was driven to suicide in 2013 after being charged with violations of federal wire fraud statutes and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act for downloading proprietary scholarly articles from the JSTOR database at MIT. His final act was a comment on the injustice of privatizing scientific research and knowledge through criminal laws. Such acts are reminiscent of the self-immolation of Buddhist monks in Southeast Asia in the 1960s.

Ten years later, we see that the cost of enforcement has led intellectual property owners to develop a variety of strategies such that, over all, access to information has increased. But this would have happened anyway even without any fucking 'self-immolation'. BTW, Buddhist monks in Vietnam etc. slit their own throats by paving the way for Communist rule. Ghosh is a cretin.  

These civil protests also parallel the strategies of Martin Luther King, Jr., who emulated the methods Gandhi used in South Africa in the 1900s and during the Indian independence movement of the 1920s and 1930s.

Fuck off! Gandhi represented the vast majority of Indians. He could have forced the Brits to do Provincial Autonomy in 1922! His genius was to appear to be anti-British while actually enabling them to stay on- that too on their own terms. Dr. King may have been going in a Socialist direction when he was assassinated. The truth is, he too, was useful to the Federal Government which wanted to get rid of Jim Crown for both National Security and Industrial efficiency reasons.  

Gandhi, in turn, was inspired by the Gita,

No. Everybody was writing commentaries on the Gita while in Jail. Gandhi was merely copying Tilak and Aurobindo and so forth. Indeed, Yeats and Isherwood and Auden too got in on that racket. However, unlike Simone and Andrei Weil, Gandhi could not read Sanskrit. Also, he was as stupid as shit. Still, he kept the Brits around for another 25 years so maybe Indians should be grateful to the maha-crackpot.  

and this connection demonstrates how the ethical system of the ancient text framed in the debate between Arjuna and Krishna provides the foundation for modern civil disobedience, whether for civil rights or for intellectual property limitations.

Or for Blasphemy laws or anti-abortion laws or to prevent Congress certifying the Presidential election. Civil disobedience can be for any crazy shit. Most of the time, it is for subsidized petrol and food and other stuff which will fuck up the economy pretty damn soon. However, where free elections are held, there is less and less need for this type of stupidity. Why? People can vote for guys who will appoint Judges who will reverse Roe v Wade and uphold the right to carry concealed weapons.  

Of course, protest movements take many forms and have many sources other than Gandhi and the Gita. I do not want to oversimplify a rich and variegated history. But civil disobedience provides a stirring illustration of the refined consequentialism coming out of the dialect between Arjuna and Krishna. Gandhi’s campaign of non-violence was based on the ethical system of the Gita. Of central importance to Gandhi was action without attachment to ends. Lack of attachment did not mean indifference to result or to consequences. Instead, Gandhi was following Krishna’s instruction to Arjuna—right action according to one’s duty. By engaging in civil disobedience, whether by evading the salt tax or protesting against the British government, Gandhi was attempting to expose the injustice of laws.

He failed. India still has a salt tax.  

The acts of disproportionate violence by the state in response to passive resistance to unjust laws exposes the injustice.

Unless it stamps out that nuisance completely, in which case it gets re-elected.  

The confrontation and conflict has its own consequentialist logic. Violently suppressing passive and morally strong protestors reveals the power of the state against the moral will of its citizens challenging unjust laws.

The alternative is to give the protestors enough rope to hang themselves. Once they start babbling about 'defunding the police' and removing immigration barriers, there will be a bigger popular backlash. Ultimately, Dr. King helped the Republicans craft a 'Southern Strategy' which revived their flagging fortunes.  

In a discussion of rights, however understood, Gandhi’s strategy can readily be characterized as a means of securing individual rights.

No. That was Sapru's strategy. He was a Liberal. Gandhi wasn't.  

But that interpretation would be misguided. For Gandhi, the issue was not individual rights, but the exposure of an unjust system.

But that injustice arose out of the fact that Indians were utterly shit when compared to Whites. Gandhi repeatedly demanded that the Brits hand over control of the Indian Army to the Indian National Congress. Why? In 1939, he clarified this in a newspaper article. ' Consider for one moment what can happen if the English were to withdraw all of a sudden and there was no foreign usurper to rule.

It may be said that the Punjabis, be they Muslims, Sikhs or others, will overrun India. It is highly likely that the Gurkhas will throw in their lot with the Punjabis. Assume further that non-Punjabi Muslims will make common cause with the Punjabis. Where will the Congressmen composed chiefly of Hindus be? If they are still truly non-violent, they will be left unmolested by the warriors.

In other words, Muslims and Punjabis will rule the country. They will take all the nice houses and good land. They may not anally rape Congressmen because of Ahimsa magic. But that's the only silver lining in this scenario. 

Obviously, Gandhi was telling porkies. There were plenty of Hindu martial castes- Marathas, Coorgis, Garwhalis etc, etc. Still, his point was that Congress, if wanted to remain Gandhian, needed the Brits to stick around. Only if the Brits handed over the Army (which they couldn't because of the large number of Muslims and Sikhs in it) to the Hindu INC, would it be safe for the High Castes to say goodbye to the Brits. Still, three years later, when Gandhi thought the Japs would win, he did tell the Brits to fuck off so he and his pals could concentrate on sucking up to their new masters. 
Once the injustice is exposed, forces are set in motion to uproot and replace it with new institutions. Action leads to results, but the action must be pure and not motivated by consequences.

Very true. Stupid shit tends not to be 'motivated by consequences'. The purest action consists of taking off all your clothes and shoving a radish up your bum and then running around screaming hysterically. The consequences may be dire, but the action is very pure indeed- right?  

Instead, the purity of the protestor contrasts with the purposeful suppression of the state.

Police are making me wear clothes! Also they are pulling radish out of my bum! Waaaaaaanh!  

Nonattachment to consequences, including the securing of rights, is what keeps the protestors pure as they are mindful only of the right, just action.

Which turns out to be wholly counter-productive.  

But it is impossible to remain pure, especially in the political realm. Gandhi himself was criticized for his tactics. He was accused of being too personal in his outlook and approaches. As the poet Sarojani Naidu quipped, India had to spend much money to keep Gandhi in poverty. What she meant was that Gandhi’s nonattachment to rights would sacrifice engagement in interest politics. Consequently, his approach created a rift with the Muslim minority on the subcontinent, sparking the division that lead to the partition into India and Pakistan upon independence in 1947. Gandhi was also resistant to special set-asides and programs for the untouchable caste, again causing splits within the independence movement.42 These examples illustrate the difficulty of being pure in action. They also raise the question of whether interest groups politics and rights talk can so readily be ignored through passive resistance. Even worse is the possibility that Gandhi’s methods had its own majoritarian biases.

No shit, Sherlock! Muslims object to Hindu stupidity just as Hindus object to Muslim craziness. But when peeps aint being stupid or kray kray, they work well enough together.  

Civil disobedience to intellectual property law follows in Gandhi’s wake.

It is shit. What works is people ignoring the law which in turn means that the industry has to find some better mechanism to protect revenue. Speaking generally, the best outcome is a sort of price discrimination by quality which itself has other benefits- e.g. better encryption and security against viruses, phishing etc.  

With the internet as a battleground, activists pursue the goals of free code and open access without any of Arjuna’s hesitancy.

Because the Gita is irrelevant.  

The need to act without attachment to individual reward and with a belief in the truth of one’s action drives scholars, programmers, and attorneys to preserve internet governance from corporate control and proprietary ownership.

This is foolish. You get even better action if people can gain celebrity and material rewards in this manner.  

Battles continue in cyberspace, in legislatures, and in the courts. Professor Lawrence Lessig,

who gained enough celebrity to make a bid for the Democratic nomination for the 2016 Presidential election.  

a staunch advocate for copyright reform in the 1990s and 2000s, shifted his focus to reform of Congress and the legislative process, the root cause of excessive intellectual property legislation. Civil disobedience against intellectual property targets the unrelenting use of state power to quash individual freedom.

No. Peeps pirating shit forces Companies to forget about legislation and focus of segmenting the market as economic theory dictates.  

However, contemporary civil disobedience is subject to the same criticism as was aimed at Gandhi.

It is stooooooopid. Also virtue signallers are soon displaced by 'woke nutjobs' who start demanding that penises should be banned. Also, why are white peeps so fucking white? The least they could do is have black stripes- like zebras.  

By suppressing attachment to private interest and emphasizing freedom and the public domain, the resistance ignores some of the virtues of intellectual property ownership, particularly among the economically and politically excluded. This tension appears in the conflict between the so-called hacker community in developed countries

The hacker community is useful to I.T in the same manner that burglars are useful to the locksmith and home security industry. Neither may be prosecuted for each offense though at some point some burglars and some hackers may do a bit of jail time at which point they ask for a few hundred or thousand offenses to be taken into account. There may have been a time when people thought that thieves could get burglary legalized or that hacktivists could get intellectual property abolished, but those days are long gone.  

and traditional knowledge holders in developing countries.

Who aren't thieves or hackers. Why the fuck is Ghosh comparing law abiding people to criminals?  

The former seek the minimization, if not the elimination, of intellectual property rights,

No they don't. One or two may say they do but the rest make their living, or get their thrills, because what they do is illegal. Otherwise, the service would be supplied by a Corporation.  

while the latter values intellectual property rights in individual creators and communities. At stake is the use of property rights to suppress liberty in opposition to the recognition of property rights to secure equality and economic advantage. On a broader scale are the differing views of intellectual property rights in developed and developing countries. As with the debate over partition of the subcontinent, stakeholders are diverse and differ in commitments to legal rights. Advocates for strong intellectual property protection to support artists and creators ignore that most intellectual property are owned by publishers and others who commercialize intellectual property for their own benefit rather than the benefit of creators. Advocates for greater user rights or access ignore how products and services protected by intellectual property are created. Defenders of user rights in the developed world ignore how intellectual property might benefit rights holders in the developing world. These often conflicting interests reflect deeper distribution questions that intellectual property may not be able to alleviate. While civil disobedience can be uncompromising, it can also be energizing. It is this spiritual and moral energy that Krishna seeks to unleash.

No. Krishna is God. He creates and sustains and destroys the Universe. He is not interested in unleashing stupid shit. I'm not saying Civil Disobedience mightn't be cool if you yourself aren't at all or can't afford to get drunk. But the thing is a nuisance.  There are many ways to get the laws changed. Civil Disobedience is the worst. 

In Mayo v. Prometheus, the Supreme Court addressed the question of whether a medical diagnostic method is patentable subject matter. The Court ruled against Prometheus, the patent owner, holding that the diagnostic method at issue covered an unpatentable law of nature.48 In reaching this ruling, the Court looked to the consequences of patenting medical diagnoses and treatment on the decisions and actions of medical professionals. Justice Breyer’s opinion, for a unanimous court, illustrates two points from my argument.

No. As in Gottschalk v Benson, the ratio illustrated only one point- neither an algorithm nor a 'law of nature' could be patentable. There must be a particular, inventive, application.  

First, the Court does not emphasize the primacy of the patent owner’s interests, which would support a very broad conception of patentable subject matter.

This is irrelevant. You simply can't patent laws of nature.  

Instead, the Court recognizes limits on patent ownership.

No. It says somethings can't be patented.  

The nature of this limitation illustrates my second point. By identifying the consequences of broad patent rights,

It made no such identification. It merely upheld the law. Somethings can't be patented.  

the Court ruled that these consequences would justify a narrowing of patentable subject matter.

No. Only if there was something added to laws could there be a property right. The Judge was not looking at 'consequences' at all. It may be that if such rights were granted the petitioner's Mummy would recover amnesia and reveal the secret of Montezuma's treasure.  This in turn would have the consequence that Putin would become a hedgehog. Sadly, judges- like the rest of us, don't know the consequences that will follow from anything. But they can go by existing rules. 

Although couched in the legal category of “law of nature,” the limitation as reflected in the Court’s reasoning builds on specific relations and agencies.

There is no mention of any such 'relations' and 'agencies'. Why not say the Court's reasoning builds on specific fairies and elves?  

In short, the rights of the patent owner hinder the duty of the medical practitioner.

This is irrelevant. The judgment is not concerned with a particular practitioner. Nor is it concerned with policy. The judgment says ' We need not determine here whether, from a policy perspective, increased protection for discoveries of diagnostic laws of nature is desirable'. Let the Legislature decide on Policy issues. 

To avoid this conflict, the Court created an exception to the rights of the patent owner.

No. The patent owner didn't own shit because a law of nature can't be anybody's property.  

The analysis in Prometheus goes beyond identifying juridical binary relationships of rights and duties. Implicit is a duty not to interfere with the duties of others.

Nonsense! Every duty explicitly requires one to interfere with the duties of thieves or gangsters or business rivals or whatever. Ghosh is talking utter nonsense.  

But I am less interested in these formal juridical pairings than in the Court’s identification of the important consequences of its decision. The Court’s reasoning demonstrates a useful style of consequentialism.

It is deontological. The consequences of my owning the law of gravity may be good. But there is a rule that laws of nature can't be anybody's property. That's why I can't be declared the owner of the thing even if everybody believes I'd use my proprietary powers only for good.  

Many critics of Prometheus’ patent on diagnosing and treating Crohn’s disease emphasized the harmful effects on patients and medical costs.

Critics don't matter. The Law clearly said that Laws of nature can't be patented. Prometheus made a complicated argument that they had added something 'inventive'. The Court disagreed.  

The Court, however, did not take this tack. Medical practitioners, and not patients, were the immediate focus for the Court. Knowledge of the patent would inhibit the ability of the medical professionals to communicate with patients and carry out their duties to treat and heal. Consequences matter but are cabined by the set of relationships implicated by the invention.

Ghose is lying. The ratio was that a law of nature can't be patented. Even if you were the first to discover it, you didn't invent it. You can't patent it because anybody else could discover it for themselves. 

The Prometheus case raises a challenge to the position of Krishna the charioteer.

Who reveals himself as the Creator and Sustainer and Destroyer of the Universe as well as every theists Personal Lord God and Savior. Nothing like this happens in any legal case. The Judge does not suddenly reveal that his 'Cosmic form' (visvarupa) is bigger than the Universe.  

Do one’s duty, even as an inventor and patentee,

There is no duty associated with being an inventor per se. A patentee may have certain legal duties or a procedural sort but the patent may not itself be legal.  

but what if one’s duty conflicts with the obligations of others?

Stand your ground. It's what you get paid to do. The other guy is welcome to go get a court order.  

To answer this question, one has to turn to Arjuna’s self-questioning to identify the scope of consequences and limits on duty. The guiding principle I advocate is one of recognizing the consequences of intellectual property rights for the duties of third parties, such as health care providers and medical practitioners.

The onus is on the rights holder to protect them. If he sleeps on his rights he loses them. Health care providers and Doctors and so forth may, as a matter of prudence, need to take account of the property rights of others but what is involved is a tort, not a crime. Indeed, that same requirement of prudence may cause them to challenge the patent in question because there may be a fiduciary duty not to pay for something, or not to do something, because of cowardice or lethargy in this regard. 

I will present two further examples that illustrate additional third parties that are affected by intellectual property rights. The first example comes from the fair use doctrine in copyright. The second addresses the first sale doctrine, a limitation on intellectual property rights arising under copyright, patent, and trademark laws. Both doctrines are relevant because of the debates they foster about rights. Courts have been very careful in not calling “fair use” a right of users. Instead, judges adopt the formal designation of the fair use “defense.”

It is a Hohfelidan incident or immunity. To speak of a right is to suggest that the thing can be alienated for consideration. It is not the case that I can get a publisher to pay me off by threatening to use a supposed 'fair use' right. 

Analogously, courts do not treat first sale as a right to resell or redistribute a copyrighted (or patented or trademarked) work, but as a limitation on intellectual property arising from competition policy. Behind these formal designations is a focus on consequentialism.

No. This is a careful discrimination of Hohfeldian incidents. There is nothing 'consequentialist' about it. On the other hand, Competition Policy can be 'consequentialist'. But Property Law can't save by express stipulation (e.g a 'public interest' provision in the relevant deed or statute).  

The nuanced consequentialism espoused in this article can serve as a model for reforming these two controversial areas of law.  Under current application, fair use in copyright suffers for emphasizing the primacy of the copyright owner’s rights to commercially exploit the copyrighted work.

This is based on Hohfeldian incidents. J.K Rowling owns Harry Potter. I can't make money of Harry Potter without paying her off. But I can enjoy sexual or aesthetic or intellectual pleasure from her work. Suppose I am inspired by something in Rowling's books to invent something really cool. Can Rowling make me pay her for having inspired me? No. I've added something 'inventive'. I paid to read her book and then something happened in my brain which is my property not hers. Rowling herself may have been inspired by tales which are out of copyright. Even if something is within copyright, Rowling's mind is so inventive that it is unlikely that there has been any intellectual property infringement. Equally, it would be difficult to make money plagiarizing Rowling because it is precisely her inventiveness which none can duplicate. 

 The challenge for the fair use doctrine is to delineate limitations on copyright that take into consideration the consequences of enforcing the rights of owners. As illustrated in the Prometheus opinion, attention to relations and agencies of other actors is desirable.

No. Just look at the 'Hohfeldian incidents'. Clearly when reading a book, what goes on in the reader's mind is nobody's property but his own. If that mind is 'inventive' then new property may be created- e.g. a book. Even if there is a 'scenes a faire' resemblance between this new book and what the author read, there is no property infringement. 

The first sale doctrine, as applied, is perhaps more attuned to the type of consequentialism I am advocating in this article.

Why? Because of Competition policy implications. Competition law, in the US, has become more 'consequentialist'. In this case, Hohfeldian incidents have changed. However they remain the proper tool of analysis. One reason for this is that Econ theory can build on a Hohfeldian structure. It can't on Sen-tentious shite.  

Ghosh mentions Kirtsaeng v Wiley- a Thai national started selling exported textbooks back in the US market and the publisher sued him. The issue was 'international exhaustion'- i.e. does first sale apply to international sales? One argument is that poor countries should pay less for textbooks- i.e. price discrimination here is in the public interest. The Supreme Court upheld 'first sale' in Kirtsaeng. The issue is whether 'price discrimination', which would be per se illegal, should not be given a 'public interest' exemption. 

 I propose that courts need to start with a consideration of consequences to determine whether the first sale doctrine provides a relevant defense.

Economists don't know the consequences. They can merely make a guess. Wiley did raise the price of international editions. Did this hurt Thai or Indian or other less affluent country students? Probably not, because a better alternative was found by the market. But, when it comes to 'dynamic effects', we'd have to wait for another decade to evaluate consequences.  

A consequentialist approach was the method in early first sale doctrine cases in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.

No. It was deontological- i.e. rule based. However, during the Thirties things moved in a 'Corporatist' direction. But this was 'delegated legislation' and involved 'doctrine of political question'.  

The Supreme Court should start with that approach. Whether to understand civil disobedience efforts or to guide legal reform, the verbal sparring of Arjuna and Krishna provides an ethical framework from which to rethink intellectual property law.

Very true. Judge should reveal in open Court that he is actually God All Mighty.  

Perhaps there are applications to legal analysis more broadly. But as this Article has shown, the strong slant of intellectual property legislation in favor of owners

Though 'Kirtsaeng' and 'Pegasus' were against owners! 

and the debates over the relevance of consequences for law provides a fruitful domain for understanding the Gita and its implications for acting and decision making in the model world of control over technology and information.

This is sheer nonsense! Gita is understood by every Hindu theist or follower of Bhakti Marga. Why is this stupid fellow pretending that US jurisprudence can help us understand our own ancestral Scripture? Sen's stupidity is more infectious than COVID- at least for Bengali buddhijivi Professors in Amrika.  

III. CONCLUSION A central battle underlying intellectual property policy is that between utilitarian and deontic foundations for intellectual property rights.

No. Hohfeldian incidents as modified by Competition policy considerations define this sphere.  

Utilitarian foundations emphasize the balance of competing interests under a broad umbrella of benefits and costs.

This is important for 'Policy' which in turn determines Legislation. This comes under the rubric of 'political question'.  

Deontic foundations, by contrast, emphasize certain interests as being primary.

Hohfeldian incidents specify rights, immunities, obligations etc. These are legal not 'deontic' notions. Why? There is no duty which prevents you 'sleeping on your rights'. If you do so, nobody has a superior duty to do your job for you. Jo sovath hai, so kovath hai- those who sleep, lose. This is 'laches' as a defense. But defenses only need to be deployed if the thing winds up in Court.  

,,,I have made the case in this article for a consequentialist approach to intellectual property,

But we don't know the fucking consequences! We don't even know all the possible states of the world. Knightian Uncertainty obtains. Sen-tentious shite has no 'stopping rule'- i.e. its arguments are interminable. In other words, 'consequences' can only be known at the end of Mathematical Time (which may not exist)! Thus what this guy is really saying is no judgments should ever be made!  

one that requires a decision maker, whether court or legislature, to assess the effects of different rules and policies on society.

Why not say, 'Judges should be able to read not just the mind of everybody, but also have a thorough knowledge of their hearts and the trajectory of their soul. Also they should have perfect knowledge of the Past and the Future.' Indeed, during every Court case, the Judge should show himself to be the Creator, Sustainer, and Destroyer of the Universe. After all, that's what Krishna does in the Gita.