Aakar Patel's imbecilic diplomatic strategy

 I am old enough to remember a time when there were some old people who remembered a time when Amnesty International wasn't crap. The same can't be said for Aakar Patel, current head of the Indian branch. He writes in the Deccan Herald-

Why Have We Got So Insecure That Questions Begin To Rattle Us Now?

Any shithead can ask questions. Nobody gives a crap about them.  In this case, a young Norwegian journalist- Helle Lyng Svendsen- who is exactly as stupid as her name sounds- says her Facebook & Instagram accounts were suspended. But that was probably because lots of people complained. She simply does not matter to Indian diplomacy. I suppose, since Norway exports oil and India is a big importer, that was the only thing of interest to either country. 

For the past 12 years, India’s diplomats have been operating under a Nehruvian carapace.

Fuck off! Nobody gives a shit about Nehru or diplomats. Still, if Modi has a couple of ex-IFS officers in his Cabinet, maybe they weren't all shite.  

We have been telling the world, particularly the democratic and developed nations, that we are secular, pluralist and liberal.

No. We have been saying our economy is booming and that we are a great place to invest.  

That we respect human rights and individual liberties. This is of course false

Nobody gives a fuck about shite only virtue signalling nutters bang on about.  

When Israel is told it is misbehaving in the region, and that its idiotic war has damaged the world, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been pointing to the validation of Israel offered by the mother of democracy as his defence. That medal was extremely good value for money.

Bibi is saying 'India is Hindu. We have a strategic partnership with them against a possible Turkey/Pak/Saudi/Iran axis. Even if the Yanks fuck off, the Kaffirs can get the better of the Jihadis. Aakar has shit for brains. He doesn't understand why Modi got the medal. India wants to send the message that, as Modi said, Israel will provide the innovation, while India provides the aspiration- i.e. makes cheap drones or whatever. 

Assume for a moment that I am a big and strong fellow who lifts heavy weights easily and is flexible and fit. If someone approached me to comment on what they saw as my being unhealthy and absence of strength, would it affect me?

You'd beat the shit out of him. First he tells you you are a weakling. Then he says you take it up the arse. Then he rapes you. Failure to beat the shit out of the fellow implies not just consent but that you are a cum dumpster.  

If the first assumption is true, that I am in fact big and strong, then it should not make any difference. In all likelihood, I will ignore the comments and move on.

He goes around saying 'I'm worried about X. I told him he was looking weak and unhealthy. Does he have cancer? If so, can we really rely on him? Maybe we shouldn't renew his contract. 

Assume that I am wealthy and have been for generations. Why would the remark from a stranger pitying the fact that I was poor or that I looked destitute upset me or anger me?

Because it affects your credit rating or the value of shares in your company. Sue the cunt for libel. 

It was not a reflection of the truth, which was that I was in fact not only rich but had been so almost forever. The view that someone else holds of me will not affect me negatively if that view is not only wrong but the opposite of what I know to be reality.

But your reputation does matter. If people think you are a coward, people will be more apt to challenge you to a fight. If people think you are poor, they may not want to do business with you. There's a reason laws of libel exist.                                                                     

The remarks from others about me only bite when they are close to the truth, and when I am insecure about the very things that their words carry.

Aakar's job is to tell stupid lies. Fortunately, he is, by nature, a stupid liar. Thus he doesn't feel insecure at all. 

The words of a young woman, a foreign reporter, have caused the mighty ministry of external affairs to lecture her, and the world at large, about the greatness of this nation.

Nobody cared. 

Lessons were given about our heritage and our culture and ancient traditions in response to an anodyne question about freedom.

Freedom is a matter of law. If you think your freedom has been wrongly violated take it up with the Bench, not the Foreign Ministry. 

Something about constitutional values and fundamental rights, including the right to approach the Supreme Court, was also said. The young woman followed up with a question which will not occur to most Indians. Why, she asked, did Indians have to approach the Supreme Court to claim fundamental rights?

They can approach any court including the Supreme Court. Only the judiciary can grant judicial  

The answer from our foreign office grandee was that it was his press conference and therefore presumably she should shut up.

Because she was utterly stupid  

The media here then jumped in. Not on the side of its fraternity, mind you, but to close ranks with the government and scream at the reporter for daring to ask things that were so obviously false. What the point of any of it was lost to the dispassionate observer, but it is interesting to examine the pathology here.

Beyonce gives a press conference. A reporter asks 'how do you justify your decision to carpet bomb Cambodia?' Beyonce says 'I'm not Nixon. Fuck is wrong with you?' Other journalists tell the fucker to shut up. You are making the rest of us look bad.

Why do we get angry and upset when questioned about our behaviour and values if we are secure in the truth?

Because telling stupid fuckers to go fuck themselves is a good way to release steam. 

The answer to that can only be that we are not in fact secure. And then the next questions must arise: is that because we are insecure despite the truth? Or insecure because what we are claiming is not true?

No fucking questions arise if you beat and chase away shitheads. 

Let us assume that the first is the case. That India and its government are insecure despite the truth, and the facts, which are that we are a democratic nation, where individuals have liberty and that the State is not malign.

India, like other nations, isn't going to be lectured on democracy and human rights and sodomy for senior citizens.  

We are merely touchy when we are asked about the subject.

We say 'shut the fuck up you ignorant cunt.  

If that is so, then the advice to foreign reporters and observers is to engage us as if we were children.

Tough guys. Fuck with us and we will shit in your mouth.  

We should be patted on the head, told we are good boys and girls, and given some sort of lollipop.

Aakar gets lollipop & stuffs it up his bum.  

Being asked hard questions will provoke a tantrum from us and this should be avoided.

Fuck tantrums. Beat the shithead.  

It should be mentioned here that this is how other nations deal with our government. If they want something from us, they will offer us a lollipop (or a medal) and a place to recite our little speech, and then extract from us what they need. When Israel is told it is misbehaving in the region, and that its idiotic war has damaged the world, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been pointing to the validation of Israel offered by the mother of democracy as his defence. That medal was extremely good value for money.

This shithead doesn't get that Israel & India are helping each other militarily. Licking the lollipop Aakar extracts from his bum is a job for the head of Amnesty International. 

Let us now turn to the other possibility, that we are insecure because we know that what we are claiming is false. That we are not in fact as democratic or liberty-loving as we claim to be, and to be reminded about that begins to upset and anger us.

Other people have real jobs. Aakar gets paid to lick a shit-stained lollipop.  

If this is the case, there is an easier solution for it. It does not concern the external world and they do not need to calibrate their behaviour towards us or treat us as children. This solution is to simply speak the truth.

Aakar can do nothing of the sort.  

 India’s government now speaks with a forked tongue.

No. It speaks with a pragmatic, albeit, upbeat, tongue.  

It says things and behaves locally in a different way than it speaks abroad.

It does last mile delivery for its own people. It trades with other countries and has partnerships in specific areas with some of those countries.  

It does not brag to the world and their reporters about bulldozers and lynchings and bail-denials and voter-deletions and community-exclusions that are the basis of New India.

Because foreigners don't have votes in India. Thus bragging is restricted to the places where it is happening. 

It talks the language of Nehru and inclusion.

Nobody does so. DEI is DOA.  

It would be easier for all of us and for the world and its reporters, if we stopped lying about what we are actually all about.

Just say 'I'm a virtue signalling cretin. Ignore me'.  

Someone making a clever pun said that diplomats are individuals sent to lie abroad for their country.

Whereas the King lies at home. The pun arises from the fact that the Monarch is sail to lie at such and such place. The Ambassador, as the King's representative, was said to do so as well.  

But given the anxiety and anger that lying is producing, we should consider the option that honesty might be the best diplomatic policy.

Diplomacy is about signalling. Indian diplomats are signalling that India is a reliable partner for specific purposes with specific countries. Aakar thinks Indian Ambassadors should be saying 'India is a shithole. Don't visit. Don't invest. Stay the fuck away.' 

Aakar Patel sodomized by Hindutva cats

Back in 2020, Aakar Patel wrote a book titled 'Hindu Rashtra'. Two years ago, he published the following in the Deccan Herald 

The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh was founded in 1925 and in three years it will be 100.

It was founded by a College pal of Dr. Hardikar who created the Congress Seva Dal which the Brits banned.  

Some people have felt, especially after the events since 2019, that 2025 will herald the transition of India to a Hindu Rashtra.

India is a Hindu country. First Buddhist majority Burma split off and then the Muslim majority areas went their own way. There is secessionist sentiment in non-Hindu majority areas. 

I explored what that could possibly mean in a previous book and am taking up some aspects of that here. A nation can be secular, Hindu Rashtra, Islamic State or any other thing based on the law. It is the laws that define the nature of the State.

No. The law does not matter. England is officially an Anglican country but non-Anglicans suffer no disability or oppression. Turkey is officially a secular country. Yet the State pays the salary of 130,000 Imams. Jews and Christians get nothing.  

Today India is governed through a Constitution

No. The Executive does the governing. The Court may say that some action of the State is unconstitutional. But if the Court is ignored there is nothing it can do. Ultimately, what keeps the State safe is its ability to do extra-judicial killing on an industrial scale.  

which was adopted after Independence,

70 percent of the Constitution is found in the 1935 Act passed by Westminster.  

and a set of criminal laws codified in the 19th century. These laws, mainly the Indian Penal Code, were enacted in 1860 and have remained more or less intact across the whole of South Asia.

No. They have been changed in various ways.  

To understand what changes can come here, we must first try to understand what the term Hindu Rashtra means.

Hindu supremacy in India- which is what Nehru delivered in 1947. There was a period when it was fashionable to believe that Socialism could deliver rapid economic growth. All that it delivered was corruption- which, it must be said, is why the thing had been adopted in the first place.  

To my mind, it could mean one of two things.

It means only one thing. Hindus dominate the State. If they are smart they will treat minorities well so that they become more productive and pay more in tax. Let them, by all means, choose their own priests and religious administrators.  

The first is that it is an interpretation of the Hindu texts and the construction of a State and laws based on these texts.

But Hindu texts say Law is a 'samskar'- it is defeasible. Do what the best people are doing- i.e. practice 'Tardean mimetics'. Ambedkar was familiar with the works of Gabriel Tarde.  

The problem here, as Dr B.R. Ambedkar had examined in his classic essay “Annihilation of Caste”, is that these texts are not applicable.

No. The correct application is to look around and see who is doing 'mechanism design' best and to imitate them.  

Enforcing the caste theory in law is not possible in our time, for no reason other than the fact that the majority of Hindus would be disadvantaged by this.

The vast majority of Hindus are already hugely disadvantaged. But things could get worse for them if they fuck over the highly productive people in the big cities who are paying a lot in Income tax.  

It is for this reason that Nepal was an incomplete Hindu Rashtra, which it was till 2008.

Nonsense! Nepalese 'Hindu Rashtra' advocates are pro-monarchy.  

In the kingdom of Nepal, executive authority had flowed from a Kshatriya King,

the King was seen as the incarnation of God. He was higher than the Kshatriya 'Ranas' though, sadly, the Rana Premier had more power. 

as prescribed in the Manu Smriti, and he was advised by a Brahmin, called the “Mool Purohit”, or “Bada Gurujyu”, in his court.

Everyone with a bit of money could get a Brahmins, or a whole bunch of Brahmins, to advise him. The King of Thailand too has a Brahmin purohit- so what?  

But no other part of the caste framework was applied, because it could not be.

Yes it was. Untouchability was only abolished in 1963.  

So, we can rule out a Hindu Rashtra in India where only those born Kshatriya will rule us, advised by Brahmins, and the rest of us left with few or no rights.

It is easy enough to do the rituals to become a Kshatriya- provided you have the power to control territory.  

Incidentally, Aakar seems to be unaware that Rahul is a Brahmin and his supporters think he has a hereditary claim to the Prime Minister's office. 

The other form that such a Hindu Rashtra may take would be to become exclusionary.

Nehru excluded Muslims who had fled to Pakistan from returning.  

This is the form that many religious states, including Pakistan, have taken.

Pakistan retaliated against Nehru's ordinance with similarly exclusionary measures. 

In Pakistan, no non-Muslim can become Prime Minister by law (Article 91). This was also the case for the President (Article 41), which is important because Pakistan’s President had the power to dismiss Parliament, which was not something that the Indian President has.

The Indian President can dissolve the lower house. The upper house is a 'continuing chamber'. Pakistan had a CJI who endorsed a 'doctrine of necessity' such that the Head of State had full sovereign powers.  

So a Hindu Rashtra of this type can mandate by law that no non-Hindu can become Prime Minister or chief minister, and that only Hindus can hold certain offices.

This was the question that was raised in 2004 when Sonia could have become PM.  

We should consider here that though we have no such law, there is no Muslim chief minister at present in this country, that no Muslim has ever served a full five-year term as CM in any state other than Jammu and Kashmir,

where Muslims are the majority 

and of course there has never been a Muslim Prime Minister in India.

Just as there can't be a Hindu PM in Christian majority Nagaland.  

This type of Hindu Rashtra can also adopt some other discriminatory aspects against its religious minorities that certain states like Pakistan have chosen. For instance, non-Muslims vote in separate electorates, and the apostatised community of Ahmadis cannot call themselves Muslims and have no religious freedom.

I can imagine a future Congress led government stigmatizing the Qadianis to appease the Hanafi majority.  

BJP MP Subramanian Swamy has proposed that Muslims should be disenfranchised, meaning that they lose their right to vote.

Swamy lost his seat in the Upper House in 2022.  

Germany in the 1930s adopted a set of laws that prevented inter-marriage between communities.

It was copying Jim Crow America.  

In India, after 2018, seven BJP states have passed laws that also criminalise marriage between Muslims and Hindus. German laws excluded Jews from citizenship, and India has of course adopted the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), excluding Muslims,

Nehru did this in 1948. All that Amit Shah did was to reassure non-Muslim refugees that they wouldn't be deported or denied a path to citizenship. 

and the Union home minister has promised us the National Register of Citizens (NRC),

first set up by the Bench in Assam along with detention centres

which also targets what he calls “termites”.

not to mention those he calls 'terrorists' 

Many of the things that India has done, especially since 2019, with targeted laws and policy on namaz, hijab, beef, bulldozer, talaq and so on would also be something that we can see in an exclusionary Hindu Rashtra.

not to mention Macron's France 

So the question is, if we have already excluded Muslims from political offices by default, and if we are already harassing them daily through laws, like Nazi Germany had done and like Pakistan does even now, then why do we need a Hindu Rashtra at all or a change from the present set of laws?

Because the Commies too require bashing- as Mamta well knows.  

My book concluded that we did not. That the present Constitution and the laws give Hindus enough freedom to apply discrimination against non-Hindus legally, while still pretending to be pluralist, democratic and secular.

But the present Constitution and the laws also give cats enough freedom to sodomize dogs. Sadly, constitutions and laws don't matter in the slightest. 

There appears to be no particular advantage or benefit that we get in officially changing our constitutional and legal state from a secular one to a Hindu Rashtra.

Moreover, India would gain nothing by declaring itself the Fourth Reich and sending Jews to the Gas-Chamber because everybody knows real name of Nicholas Maugham (aka Narendra Modi) is Nasty-nasty Hitler-Mussolini.  

Of course we can still do it because it can give us pride and we can humiliate Muslims further and tell them they have no stake in India.

Moreover, Hindu cats can sodomize Mahua Moitra's dog.  

Some have written that many Muslims might prefer this honesty rather than be marginalised through hypocrisy as they have been done.

Indeed, many Indian Muslims beg Modi to personally to defecate on their upturned faces on network TV rather than sneaking into their homes at night and doing it while they sleep. As for Mahua Moitra's dog, it has asked the Supreme Court to take suo moto action to locate and make public smartphone footage of Hindutva cats sodomizing dogs in the National Capital Region. 

Whatever we decide, it will interest the world.

More particularly, if videos of cats sodomizing dogs are widely disseminated.  

The era of religious states is over and no new ones of significance have been founded in the 21st century.

Islamic State Sahel is expanding as the French depart the region.  

Many states founded on religion have reversed their discriminatory laws because birth and faith are too narrow a frame to view individuals through.

Israel? Pakistan? Islamic Republic of Iran?  

While for citizens this period may be traumatic, and it is for me the worst period of my life,

Hindutva cats mistake him for a dog and bugger him senseless 

for writers it is rich with material as a nation once admired around the world is eating itself alive.

Aakar may be eating himself- but he is brain dead.  

Aakar Patel on Jinnah's 14 points

Aakar Patel is a director of Amnesty's Indian branch. With remarkable honesty, he advocates Jinnah's program in Outlook India 

Beginning two decades before Partition, Jinnah tried to reach an agreement with the Congress Party and failed. What were his demands? We should have a look at them because most Indians are not taught this in school.
The Muslim League asked for 14 points. These were:
1) India’s constitution should be federal, with some powers being given to the states.

Yes. The Centre would be weak. Thus, as happened during the War, food surplus states like Punjab would not help starving states like Bengal though the Premiers of both States were friends and supported the Pakistan Resolution.

Also, States could do ethnic cleansing while the Centre stood by impotently. Direct Action Day in Calcutta is an example. Ultimately each and every one of the 'States' that existed at the time split up because of linguistic, religious or other differences. In a Federal Government, the shape of States don't change. They have an abiding existence and well defined borders. In the Indian subcontinent, States have to be reorganized from time to to time.

Jinnah's vision of India would have been like the Arab League which was established in 1945- a mere talking shop unable to do anything to solve inter-Arab problems. There would have been famine in some states while other states had food surpluses. There would have been rampant ethnic cleansing on the basis of Religion, Language, and historical discrimination.

2) That all states must be given uniform autonomy.

So as to do ethnic cleansing.

3) All legislatures must have an adequate and effective representation of minorities in each state, without reducing the majority in any state to a minority.

Ceylon was given this, along with universal suffrage in 1930. But Sri Lanka has had terrible ethnic cleansing and Civil War. Why? Legislatures don't matter. Ethnic cleansing does. 

4) Muslims should have one-third representation in the Central legislature.

What about Dalits? Why should Hindus always be a minority where they are a majority? Did having disproportionate representation in Sindh enable them to escape ethnic cleansing? No. All of this was blindingly obvious by 1946.

5) There should be separate electorates for communities and it should be left to a community whether it wants to abandon this in favour of a joint electorate.

Separate electorates meant that the separatist Muslim League got elected in areas where Muslims were a minority. This was like turkeys voting for Thanksgiving. A minority may elect nutters who think they can prevail in a Civil War. Then the community gets ethnically cleansed. Incidentally, J.N Mandal, the Namasudra leader, supported the Muslim League and helped Sylhet go to Bangladesh. He was made a Cabinet Minister by Jinnah. But his community got ethnically cleansed and he himself had to run away to India.

6) Any division of states made should not affect the existing majority of Muslims in that state.

What does this mean? If Muslims were a majority in undivided Punjab or Bengal, they must remain a majority in East Punjab and West Bengal. 

7) Full religious liberty, i.e. liberty of belief, worship and observance, propaganda, association and education, shall be guaranteed to all communities.

By whom? Did Jinnah's Pakistan grant this liberty to non-Muslims? Even Ahmadiyas, fanatical supporters of Pakistan, have received short shrift in that country.

8) No bill or resolution or any part thereof shall be passed in any legislature or any other elected body if three-fourths of the members of any community in that particular body oppose it.

So the Legislature will be paralyzed. It will cease to matter- if it ever did. Meanwhile, ethnic cleansing will alter demographics. The Army may try a spot of genocide as the Pakistani Army did in the East Wing. Aakar Patel is not a young kid. He must know about the trajectory of Jinnah's Pakistan. 

9) Sindh should be separated from the Bombay Presidency.

And Gujarat. 

10) Reforms should be introduced in the North-West Frontier Province and Balochistan in the same way as in other provinces.

But they should not be allowed to go their own way. Jinnah soon put a stop to the antics of Badshah Khan. Balochistan has witnessed military sponsored genocide.

11) Provision should be made in the constitution giving Muslims an adequate share, along with the other Indians, in all the services of the state and in local self-governing bodies having due regard to the requirements of efficiency.

Why stop there? Every caste group could demand the same. What about jobs in the private sector? They too should be subject to quotas. So should roles in films and positions on Sports teams. Women must have half of all jobs. Illiterate people are under-represented in Academia. Dead people are blatantly discriminated against.

12) The constitution should give adequate safeguards for the protection of Muslim culture and for the protection and promotion of Muslim education, language, religion, personal laws and Muslim charitable institutions and for their due share in the grants-in-aid given by the state and by local self-governing bodies.

Then why not adequate safeguards for the protection of Hindu culture and Sikh culture and so forth? 

13) No cabinet, either central or provincial, should be formed without there being a proportion of at least one-third Muslim ministers.

What happened when Liaquat Ali Khan became the Finance Minister? He stalemated everything Sardar Patel was trying to do as Home Minister. The result was administrative paralysis.

14) No change shall be made in the constitution by the Central Legislature except with the concurrence of the States constituting the Indian Federation.

But the States split up on religious lines in any case. Ethnic cleansing occurs. Politicians are disintermediated. All talk of elections and Legislatures is dropped. Pakistan didn't have a proper general election till 1970- and then promptly split up in a sea of blood.

If the Congress had agreed to these points, Partition would not have happened.

Rubbish! There would have been massive ethnic cleansing and continuous internecine war between different religious and linguistic groups.

Look at Lebanon. It is a mess. Why? It had a Jinnah type power sharing Constitution. 

Looking at these points after all these years, I do not find anything wrong in them and in fact, I agree with all of them. Some of these, like numbers 7, 9 and 12 became a part of the Indian Constitution in any case. Others, like 1, 2, 10 and 14 are similarly not disputable.

But the Constitution can always be amended when it isn't simply disregarded

The sticking points were the ones guaranteeing Muslims political representation. This, Congress did not want to concede. Leaders like Nehru and Gandhi probably did not imagine that in the India of 2019, the ruling party would win more than 300 seats and not one would be Muslim.

Why not? Congress got very few Muslim votes. It was massively Hindu in its membership and vote-base.  It was only under Congress that Muslims fled to Pakistan. Even into the Sixties, the Custodian of Enemy Property was harassing Muslims till they decided to emigrate.

But that is what has happened. Jinnah knew it and would not be surprised like Gandhi would today because the former understood that the Indian was politically and culturally majoritarian and it is difficult to say he was wrong.

Patel says 'Indians are majoritarian'. This is not true. India was ruled by a small British minority which, however, was considered greatly superior to the majority of Indians. Only when propaganda was spread that the Brits were robbing India did the Indians become disaffected.

 Indians still spontaneously take Western models as mimetic targets- at least in those fields where they are clearly superior. They don't want to imitate Muslims or Dalits. Why? There is no advantage in being ruled by, or mimicking, a less successful and less developed people. 

Today Indians are again being forced into a situation where the political force which is dominant is exercising its majoritarian impulse and denying the others any space. We have learned no lessons from our history even when its teaching has been so clear and precise.

The lesson of history is indeed clear and precise. Jinnah's program led to ethnic cleansing of non-Muslims. Pakistan did not progress into a model India should emulate. By contrast, China is a good model for India. It is wholly majoritarian. But, because learning English is a good thing, China encourages people to learn English. Why did China chose this path? The answer is that it decided to imitate its more successful neighbours. This meant becoming like South Korea or Taiwan, not imitating Pakistan.

Aakar Patel nicely illustrates the imbecility of the impotent Indian Liberal Left. Its main demand is that Hindus fuck themselves over because Jinnah wanted them to. If you don't do what your enemies want you to do then you are very naughty.

Why does Patel not simply convert to Islam and encourage others to do the same? That way he can reduce the Hindu majority. The answer, I think, is that being a Muslim involves more than writing stupid articles. You have to pray to God and give money to charity and live an upright life. Jinnah, no doubt, could have his bacon sandwiches and whiskey and soda- but more would be accepted of a Patel.