Tuesday, May 17, 2016

Modi goes into full subsidy mode :Wants us to remain a nation of farmers

At the risk of sounding like a  broken record Sabhlok on Modi who seems to have some odd personal vendetta against the PM, in this case he is proven right. For long subsidized crops at fixed prices were the bane of Indian farming which led to stagnation of small farmers and large farmers corruptly colluding with the central government where they will find a ready buyer and thwart competition from foreign markets regardless.U.S pretty much has the same story

Farm Subsidies Put India in a Bind (Wall Street Journal story which I wont link for reasons given in comments below)

“The market support…encourages farmers to produce much more of the subsidized commodities than they would have otherwise, exacerbating the global glut.”

In other words subsidized crops led to over supply which in turn led to low prices and this put a farmer in an uncomfortable quandry. What is the solution, well subsidize them some more of course as per Modi thus perpetuating poverty for the small farmer. The large zamindars can take a hit and recover.

“India guarantees minimum prices for certain crucial crops to protect its large population of poor farmers. When prices plunge, it has to buy more. It usually sells the commodities it collects at a loss—some to India’s needy and some on global markets. Some of the stockpile just rots in government warehouses.”

 Be it BJP, Congress , AAP or whichever character is in charge, our romanticized approach to agricultural leads to many wrong headed decisions. And oh god forbid the Indian consumer be exposed to crops from abroad! Cant let that, we have to protect our farmers, no matter what! Perhaps if farming was unprofitable for some folks, then they shouldnt be farming. At what point will the Indian government realize this?

I am reminded of some lunkheaded minister who was aghast the economic liberalization introduced by PM Rao may expose the Indian populace to that very agent of Satan- washing machines! Why , howled the minister, think of all the maid servants who will be unemployed. To which PVNR responded as he only he could "if we think like that, we would remain a nation of maidservants"

Similarly in his dimwitted RSS mindset wants us to remain a nation of farmers. But why single out the BJP , pretty all politicians suffer from this primitive mindset no matter how educated. The notion of the noble farmer as the backbone of the Indian economy is a hard one to displace.

To all these naysayers out there - I ask you what percentage of say U.S is involved in farming - a mere 5%! And yes they are self sufficient actually , thank you very much.

In the meantime......

“Government officials say they have no plans to reduce the subsidies….(India) even threatened to scuttle an important World Trade Organization agreement in 2014 unless it was given a guarantee that it could continue its subsidy and stockpiling programs. ‘Subsidies are meant to encourage productivity and better farming practices,’ said Sudhir Singh, an official at India’s agriculture ministry. ‘We are committed to our social-welfare programs.’”

Operation is successful- Patient is dead. That is the Indian government's mindset towards the economy.

Argument with an ignorant Rajput supremacist on Historum

I had been participating on historum on and off for last 8 months or so. In the process of quarelling with some Paki propagandists I had been suspended. Recently I came across a Rajput apologist called "Bhrigu" talking trash about south Indians so I decided to give him the treatment. You can find the full exchange here. This lily livered coward at first claimed that he would not engage me anymore but after my response to him, he reported me , had me banned for multi accounting(guilty is charged) and then went ahead with incoherent rubbish below. His text is italics, my response in normal.


You make many bizarre allegations and insuniations here which I want to address before I go further. I am by no means a Maratha basher and no , not even a Rajput basher. I simply want to point that each community has a mixed record with its own pluses and minuses. None of the south Indian posters implied Rajputs were anyhow inferior but YOU were the one who brought up taunts such as it takes a Rajput to defeat a Turk, not a Kannadiga etc. I simply responded in kind and all of a sudden you behave like a wounded fawn.

If you think you need to provide explanations behind what you say then it is you acting like a "wounded fawn", not me. 

 Are you serious. All I did was respond to your rubbish. And now you whine about my response. If you dont understand it thas not my problem. The very fact you responded after you declared that you dont wish to participate in this exchange and then responded after I got banned show your utter lack of character and cowardice to all.

And your post below seems to be nothing but some personal insults and irrelevant ramblings. Anyway, as I have said before, I'll refrain from participating in any fight or responding to any insult since I have been warned by the moderators once, and I do not like suspensions unlike a multi-accounter like yourself. 

I really hate people who are so unimaginative at retorts that they end up recycling yours. Anyway thank you for admitting that the only way you can debate me is by banning me by snitching on me to the moderators like some cowering school boy.

The most important comment I need to make is how you simply avoided my point regarding geography with some (rather expected) irrelevant and meaningless remarks. It is indeed the geography which is playing the biggest role here, as there never was any major Islamic empire reaching South. A single campaign facing all odds would set up the base for 600 years of Islamic rule in the South, which is indeed quite laughable.

I already addressed the claim about geography. South when it came to the early Turkic Islamic invasions and superior weaponry and logistics were almost bulldozed just as the North was. Once again you have no case for south inferiority-Rajput superiority.

Marathas managed to crush Aurangzeb and his Islamist empire even though they were far from the centre of his power. So Rajputs obviously had a better chance to do it than Marathas. You yourself boasted about Mewar being untouched by Muslim rule so why couldnt it do more than Marathas is a very reasonable question. Remind me when Marathas crushed Aurangzeb? It is just like saying Mongols were crushed by Japanese just because they failed to conquer it and lost men in the effort.

Aurangzeb could capture Shivaji when he wanted and make him pay tribute, and also capture and execute his son. At best one can say is they raided some of their territories a few times, and then defended their realms successfully from the Mughal armies. Real "crushing" of Mughals happened after Aurangzeb's death.

The Mughal empire at Aurangzebs death was for practical purposes finishing. The loss of men and monies made the empire simply unsustainable. And please dont use historical analogies in a pathetic attempt to look smart. Mongols may have been "defeated" by the Japanese but that didnt spell the end of the empire like it did for Mughals.

Actually none of this is really obvious to me. Afghans and Turks are rather overrated militarily and they won as often by dirty tricks and subterfuge as due to their superior military organization, weapons and tactics. 

You say that it is not obvious to you, you also say that they have superior military organisation, weapons and tactics. Okay, bro. 

I phrased that poorly. As man to man any Indic soldier was more than his worth in salt than a Turkic or Afghan soldier but they were more developed militarily.

NOw you are shifting the goalposts from Mewar Rajputs in Akbar's era to all Rajputs at all times. You see the problem here. 

WTF are you talking about???

If you cant follow just STFU.

ROTFL , not this lame claim again. You contradict yourself by giving the example of Malik Kafur who conquered south India relatively easily. BTW that was a first for any conquerer. Even Asoka, Samudragupta and Harsha couldnt manage that. So put that into consideration. The Islamic conquest created an entirely new paradigm in India. So that has to be placed into context.

 This is what I said > Malik Kafur faced many odds, massive geographical barriers. Even after this he managed to wipe out all kingdoms from South India.

Now tell me how I self-contradict.

Once again , if you have to sit at the adults table either try to follow or STFU

Repeating rubbish claims over and over again in a Goebbelsian manner may fly in some BJP committee meeting teeming with semi literate RSS members but not here. Ibn Batuta reported on the cruelty of the Madurai Sultanate which alarmed him even though the victims were Kafirs. They were relieved by Vijayanagar conquests.

 What is your point?? The very fact that a Sultanate was established in the deep bottom South speaks volumes about the supposed martial culture of Dravidians.

The martial culture of Rajputs allowed the Turkic invaders,Khilji and Kafur in particular to wade through them as if it was a lily field. Vira Pandya and Khilji showed great valor and resistance against the Turks.

Khilji and Malik Kafur were successful where North Indian Hindus had failed, yes even Ashoka whose hold over southern India was more tenuous than we imagine. Yes, whats your point. 

Yes and that is why Perso-Islamic Turko-Afghans were superior to Hindus, which is somehow not obvious to you.

Eh? When did I ever deny Turko Afghans had a superior military organization. I just said they were not some unstoppable as some invincible entity as some bootlickers claim.

THe same Khilji and Kafur easily overran Rajputs and got their queens as trophies. Kakatiyas and Pandyas actually offered some strong resistance even if they eventually succumbed. And yes their resistance was more resilient than Rajputs but then I never mocked Rajputs over that as its in bad taste. 

This is one of your most hilarious claims so far. Please show us how the South Indian resistance was greater than the one showed in North India.  

Rajputs were not completely subdued even after centuries of continuous Muslim campaigns, while South Indians were wiped out in a single campaign. Other posters will also be interested in how South Indian resistance was great. Please explain this. 

I think it is obvious why this guy had me banned. The embarassment for him is just too much to bear. Rajputs werent subdued!! Yes that is why they offered themselves as canon fodder to Akbar and their women to the Mughal and Turkic beds. This guy is a joke a minute.

It took many campaings by Khilji and Malik Kafur to finish the Kakatiyas. Vira Pandya performed hit and run tactics on Kafur which he was unable to counter.

LOL, what ignorance and complexes. First off Bahmanids had imported a very large number of Persians, Afghans, Central Asians etc etc. So much so that one of the reason for the break up was resentment by native converts who were fewer and slowly rising up the food chain in the heirarchy over their treatment. Hindus didnt start enlisting in southern Deccan sultanates until well after Talikota but offering their daughters to harems were unknown unlike Rajputs. And there is no such thing as a Muslim Kamma, Muslim Velama or Muslim Reddy but there are Muslim Rajputs up the ying yang. 

Do you even read what I write? 

There is not much worth reading in there.

You yourself say that Bahmanid nobility was partly native, which is what I was saying. 

No you were saying that North Indian sultanates had mostly Afghan and Turkic which were superior to native infantry and hence Rajputs had a tougher time. I showed you that Bahmanids were similar in the ethnic make up of their nobility and their army and now you shift the goal posts to say "oh that is what I was saying anyway"!

Anyway, the more tolerant Sultanates like Bijapur relied more on native convert and even Hindu nobility than Bahmanids. But you seem to ignore or not understand most of what I write.

It is generally a good idea to ignore dishonest self serving propagandists.

By the way, the Rajput ladies burnt themselves before any Turk got their hands on them. A practice of such honour is unseen in South Indian history. 

LOL there are tons of Sati stones in south India. Anyway I am not aware of any Rajput ladies burning themselves in Mughal harems. Please show me this.

Dude, seriously how old are you. ANd what is your real world work experience. I am not saying this to be snide but you seem to be thoroughly lacking in leadership and management abilities by these statements. I have run a company and was in a management position for many years. A very basic rule is this - you own whatever goes wrong rather than blaming it on your subordinates. So with Marathas, never mind Pindharis did this or that. Fact is then ,why did they hire them. Maratha apologists rather than own the fact that Marathas arent perfect make these types of lame excuses. I admire the Marathas a great deal and no I dont believe they are originally south Indian lol but they do have some south Indian cultural influence in their names, religious rituals etc etc. Their glories and warts are their own and no one elses. I neither subscribe to British historian slander about the later Maratha nor to Maratha nationalists. My take is simple- earlier Marathas were noble people filled with a sacred mission but later Peshwas really perverted the Maratha zeal in mercenary adventurism and alienated needlessly a lot of allies. Heck even Naga sadhus chose to fight for Abdali at Panipat. I actually am sympathetic to Rajputs in this matter. 

You have run a company? Really? Because you do not seem to be old enough to run a company to me. And do you even know what you are trying to prove? In this same post you have both defended and insulted the Marathas. You seem to be confused whether you should consider them as North Indians or South Indians.

Once again the tired and pathetic trope of witless posters simply copying my insults. Dude come up with some of your own. What I am trying to prove is that distancing Pindharis from Marathas doesnt work at all. If you had an ounce of leadership in your bones you would know this. But I am guessing you are simply a chaiwalla in an office.

Regarding pindaris, again what are you trying to prove? Do you even have a clue what we are debating about or you are just posting your random thoughts combined with some insults?

Atleast my insults are original which is more than I can say for yours.

As for my opinion, using Pindaris for raiding and in wars was not unconventional. They were first hired by Muslims, but as power shifted to the Marathas, Pindaris started following Maratha raiding bands. Later when Marathas become very weak due to constant wars with Afghans and with British, they had no power to successfully control Pindaris, and they became bands of independent looters and marauders. Very naturally, Marathas effectively used them to raid British territories, which is purely pragmatic. If I were the Peshwa, I would have done the same.

Of course you would because you are an idiot. If you were Peshwa , the subcontinent would be one giant Pakistan , so thank god that didnt come to pass.

As usual you miss my point. It is exactly because Jats have no strong kingdoms or resources does their resistance become all the more admirable! Agreed their annexation of large parts of Mughal territories was admirable, and what do you mean by resistance? All they did was carving out their kingdoms from the regions with declining Mughal authority. Mughals were no power to resist when the Jats were flourishing. And fyi, this also happened in Rajasthan where directly ruled Mughal territories like Ajmer were annexed by previously tiny Rajput states.

My point about Jats was that they showed more spirited resistance than Rajputs even as they had no resources. They practically ruled the environs of Delhi and so did the Marathas. But not the Rajputs whose backyard it was. Again why are boasting about Rajputs when such a pathetic showing. And you are not even Rajput but Brahmin from Haryana. Jeez I heard that Haryanvis were knuckleheads but I thought those were just the Jats. If Brahmins have such low IQ I shudder to think of what the peasant Jats are like!

My point about Stockholm syndrome about many north Indian Rajputs and brahmins vis a vis Turks stands I did not know admiring Ataturk means Stockholm Syndrome.

So apparently admiring Ataturk(Bhrigus previous avatar was Kemal Ataturk) - a man who admired and praised Turkic domination over half the known world including Khilji et al is not Stockholm Syndrome. This Bhrigu is one step away from offering his wife and sister to a random Turk and then patting himself on the back for his courage in doing so!

LOL I didnt know Vijayanagar had fewer churches than Byzantium! As usual you miss the analogy. My point was Vijayanagar was an empire centred around a city besieged by Turks much like Byzantium. Anyway the comparision of architecture is ridiculous. Byzantine is as old as Christendom, Vijayanagar was barely 300 years old when it was destroyed. Interestly they were destroyed approximately the same time.  

As for Vijayanagar being a jungle...LOL I didnt know jungles were considered world Heritage sites! 

So does being a kingdom based around a city and destroyed by Turks makes you somehow great??? 

I never said being destroyed by Turks makes us great? What the heck are you talking about. So Vijayanagar stops being great because it was destroyed? Where is the Rajput Vijayanagar, if there was nothing worthy of destroying in Rajput lands, that is not our problem?

And as usual, you do not understand the jokes, the point was that Vijayanagar is a ruinous village today, while Chittor is an alive city with more numerous monuments and fortifications to boast of (and a World heritage site as well ). 

Chittor is a dump like most north Indian towns paritcularly those in Rajasthan and UP. What part of Vijayanagar was destroyed but revitalized further down south in Penukonda dont you understand?

If Vijayanagar was in Mewar...blah blah..there is a reason I dont participate in the Speculative history section. Butterfly effect and all that. 

This is how you have carefully avoided the point regarding geography.

No I have not but you have carefully avoided the subject of Rajput women in Muslim harems...

So I should praise Rajputs for awesome military ability but not hold it against them than an "inferior" Kannadiga were able to get their hands on some guns. Got it! 

No you should not. Because the reason why Kannadigas had guns was again some Turks, while no neighbour of Mewar had any knowledge of guns. I do not understand how Mewar is supposed to innovate firearms on its own when everyone from a Persian to a Bengali is ignorant of it.

Then more fool Mewaris as they were ignorant and backward even as a good number of Rajputs from Mewar and elsewhere served Vijayanagar and other southern kingdoms.

This is really funny. Golkonda a petty state but Malwa and Gujarat awesome military forces Golkonda was a byword for power and prestige down to the present day(check the eponymous paintings by Rene Magritte). Also if ill armored army of peasants were able to hold off the Turks for so long and the better armed Rajputs were barely as successful so I suppose we should celebrate the peasants shouldnt we. LOL logic fail on your part once again. LOL. 

Do you even know what you are saying?? Golconda was hardly a "byword for power" when Devaraya was alive.

Yes it was and even later. Golkonda held off Aurgangzebs forces for nearly 8 months which other north Indian kingdom did that.

 And yes, a million strong naked peasant army is perhaps better than some 20,000 outnumbered and heavily efficient Rajput cavalry.(smiley face)

Actually it is , because these so called naked peasant army shows that the martial culture is well dispersed throughout south India and not restricted to some parasitic elites who offer their own daughters,sisters and wives to the harems of a Muslim ruler just so they can hang on to their kingdoms. The peasant army of Rashtrakutas was considered the best infantry in India.The scantily clad Nairs  bested repeatedly the Portuguese,British and the Dutch not to mention Tipu Sultan. Wellington himself was in awe of them. British recruited heavily from Tamil and Telugu peasant castes whom they admired for their courage and they got the best of Rajputs in various wars in the 1800s.

Yes Vijaynagar power was decentralized in smaller "nadus"- so what? There was much less potential for tyranny and oppression in that manner. 

So what???!!!!!  This single argument easily gives readers a true idea about your experience in the field of history, which is extremely minimal. Vijayanagar was decentralised not because they did not want "tyranny" or that this system was efficient, but because the emperor lacked any sort of power to control his subordinates. This is highly disastrous as most times, most of revenue from the Tamil Nayakas never reached the emperor, and at times even some chieftains were more powerful than the emperor himself. The only reason why they accepted Vijayanagar's overlordship was to derive legitimacy for their rule out of it. This is the classic case of extremely inefficient administration and highly decentralised nature of Hindu kingdoms.

Needs more exclamation points....any way you are just as clueless about economics and governance as you are about politics and history. A strong centralized empire will lead almost to utter collapse of every aspect of society. This is what happened to Persia and Central Asia which is why they fell so easily to Islam. All a emperor has to do is ensure law and order, collect taxes and levy troops, thats it! What more does one need? As for revenue not reaching the emperor, how exactly did Vijayanagar become the awesome metroplis it once was. What was Chittor again? Oh yes a dump then and a dump now.