Orthopapism II/Michaelinum | Index of Articles
It is widely believed that India is a formidable and even invincible military power in its neighbourhood, and therefore, the cause of liberating tiny Goa from its clutches, is extemely difficult if not downright impossible.
But that is a belief that is more apparent than real.
As I will prove: India is an edifice, a monument of lies, built upon lies, and cemented together by lies; and as such, a determined effort to propagate the truth cannot avoid bringing about the complete destruction of the Indian Union.
For the first thing, India is not a nation, but a disparate collection of nations. While it is true that most of the nations of sub-continental India are related, and descended from common ancestors or possess common historic traditions, it still remains true that substantial nations have a tradition of hostility and of resistance to the historic Aryan-Hindu complex's effort to penetrate the sub-continent and perpetrate India.
In the movement against the alien rule of the English, the Indians, largely of the Aryan-Hindu tradition came together and succeeded in stirring a hysteria against the English and for independence.
In gaining independence, they have agreed among themselves, despite their internal polarisation into the Congress moderates and the Sangh Parivar extremists, to propagate the myth of India being a nation, and of a national language, etc.
Up until independence, it was easy to blame all difficulties on the English. After independence, the English still remain demonised. However, the peoples of India are not fools, and it is impossible to blame all the post-independence difficulties on the English.
Before Independence could have been attained, Gandhi, as president of the foremost and dominant movement demanding independence, the Indian National Congress, yielded to persistent pressure and reorganised the Congress on ethnic basis, or as the Indians like to call it, on a "linguistic basis."
But this did not do complete justice to all the peoples of India. Many of the nations of India, and many of them ancient and historic ones, had been not represented by this linguistic organisation.
Following independence, there was a persistent demand that the old provinces should be re-organised to reflect ethnic realities, or as the Indians like to call it, linguistic realities. At this time, India was already free, and its freedom was not constricted in any manner by the English. Therefore, the Indian government was totally free to accede to this natural and moral demand, and to even anticipate it and fulfil it to the maximum, within reasonable limits.
Here I would make a digression. I would like to remind the reader of the precedent of the Austrian Empire, that was finally dissolved in 1917. Until defeated and overwhelmed by Napoleon, it was officially that part of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation that was directly ruled by the Habsburg emperors. Following defeat at the hands of Napoleon, the Habsburg surrendered their rights to be the Holy Roman Emperors and assumed the new title, Emperor of Austria.
The newly organised state or Empire of Austria contained the German territories of modern Austria, Hungary and the Slavic territories to Hungary's north and south part of Poland, the country of the Czechs and Slovaks, Ruthynia, Slovenia, Croatia and Voywodina.
Within this disparate state, both the Germans and the other nationalities began rigorous efforts at emergence as independent states; a process that led to the reorganisation of the Empire as the Dual Monarchy of Austria and Hungary; and finally, in 1917, to its complete dissolution into the states of Austria, Czecho-Slovakia, Hungary, Poland, "Yugoslavia", etc.
The Habsburgs tried different strategies to contain the growing nationalism and disconent, but they failed because they failed to voluntarily take the initiative of giving each nationality its autonomy and because it failed to repress "nationalism" and secessionism.
In the cases of the Russian Empire and of "Yugoslavia", the Communists both erected each national homeland into its own province, as far as possible, and also conducted a systematic, institutioanlised campaign of intimidation and terrorism against dissidents. That combined policy served to both pacify (to an extent) and to silence any demand for secession and independent nation-states.
Coming back to India: The Indian Union, like the Habsburg, did not voluntarily come forward and take the initiative to meet the just rights and requirements of each individual nation. On the contrary, it officially despised and ran a campaign of denigration against such aspirations. Ultimately, it was forced by the individual peoples of the larger nations to create new provinces that by and large conformed to their national homelands, but this was neither complete nor satisfactory. To worsen things, the Indian Union maintained, and still maintains its attitude of hostility and of contempt for such aspirations, under the spurious label of "regionalism" or "sub-altern nationalism".
This was done, by and large, in the period 1960-1965. Since then, there has been only some very minor tweaking of these arrangements, and the Indian Union has steadfastedly refused to go any further.
As a result, the rights of very many peoples, inchoate, remains unarticulated, and is forced to find an alternative in violent seccessionist movements.
Let me stress on this one single fact: The Constitutional "Principle" or Ideology upon which the Indian Union is based, is of such a nature, that it will recognize and move to act, to accomodate and to pacify a people only when they have taken to arms and have forced themselves and their causes and demands with arms and with violence upon the attentions of the Indian government, but, by no means otherwise.
Any people who sedulously and consensually restrict themselves to peaceful methods will never, ever be able to gain the serious attention of the Indian government, nor will it gain its ends.
That makes it conclusive that the Indian System is built in such a manner that it demands
violence before it will act to offer a compromise.
That is: In India, violence pays
! No people in India can gain and be assured of their rights unless and until they recourse to violence!
In the book, Mizoram
by Animesh Rai (ISBN 81-237-0470-4. The National Book Trust of India, New Delhi. 110 016) the then Prime Minister of India, Rajiv Gandhi is quoted as saying (page 202):
"The lesson to be learnt from Mizoram is that violence does not pay."
But, as a matter of fact, the true lesson from the history of Mizoram, is that in India, at least, it is only violence that pays! If the Mizos had not taken to arms and fought long and hard for their rights, they would not have been given any of the things that India has conceded them.
In any debate on the issue, I have always thrown up this challenge:
Why is it that in India, if any people desire their right, they will not receive any attention to their demand, until they force themselves upon the Government by taking to arms?
Is there even one nationality that has achieved its rights without recoursing to violence?
Till today, no one has been able to provide me an answer.
I have further asked:
If India is supposed to be a "family", why is it that only when some nation, supposed member of the Indian "family" has to fight and make a nuisance of itself, before there is an effort made to accomodate its rights and aspirations?
Is it natural to families that members are ignored until they demand attention by perpetrating a Columbine?
It is a notorious fact that many of the present provinces of the Indian Union were created only when the dominant ethnic groups of those provinces took to violent agitation, such as the Samyukta Maharashtra Abhiyaan
(United Maharashtra Movement).
Contrary to the lies of the Indianists, I affirm that the attitude and behaviour of the Indian state merely proves the natural fact that India is NOT
either a "nation", nor a natural "family"!
It is the natural right of all people to live a life of dignity and respect; a people, as a people have the right to be recognized and treated as a people, as a corporate whole, and granted the rights that nations must possess.
The rights of a nation include self-government, most especially over subjects of culture, but does not necessarily include a right to secession and to institution as an independent nation-state. So much is reasonable and ought to be evident to one and all.
India is not Austria-Hungary. The Indian government is not composed of Habsburg according to the flesh. Yet, India has always acted, and still acts in the same manner.
In India today, a great many people have been forced to take up arms and attempt to secede. India has been fortunate up until now, in that these movements were neither simultaneous nor coordinated. It is because of these two facts alone that India has succeeded in putting down these movements. It is because of these two facts alone that India has survived dismemberment till now.
But both these facts are changing. The victims of India are learning from history, while India learns nothing. This must inevitably bring India to a time when its armed forces will be stretched and overwhelmed, and its ability to terrorise dissidents will be broken.
Such an eventuality is both possible and desirable. More, it is an event that can be hastened by careful planning and action. It can be hastened by a relentless plugging of the truth given that India lies on a foundation of lies and by coordinating with dissidents and other enemies of India.
That is, India needs a good shove, and that shove will send it totering over the edge, into chaos and dismemberment.
Until now, those who have plotted againt the Indian Union have plotted by taking advantage of the natural appetites of people who have reached a stage of development where they see that they are repressed and demand their place in the sun. And such movements are restricted, till now, only to nationalities.
But if India is to be broken, if the power of the Aryan-Hindu complex is to be broken, and a new loose alliance of states is to be established in its stead, then it is necessary to look beyond this mere traditional view and to look to gain the affections of particular victim castes and to harness them to this effort.
There will need to be some kind of modus vivendi with the Maoists who are already exploiting these victim-castes, and build up a grand coalition towards this end.
I sincerely believe that this is both feasible and achievable.
Orthopapism II/Michaelinum | Index of Articles