Nehru limited the capabilities of the Indian army and presence of army higher-ups in politics over a fear of coup's in a newly democratic nation. Moreover, structural changes to the armed-forces made it rather difficult to do so -- Each of the three arms: the navy, airforce, and the army had individual Commander-in-Chiefs. This limits collaboration and the further stamps out the vague possibilities of a coup. Cariappa, the first general of the indian army was sent off when he made the suggestions of a temporary coup to stabilise democracy.
This vasectomy of the army was really only a symptom and not the cause of what the nation suffers from. You can see it in all facets of life, in the slow bureaucracy, ineffectual local governments, the lack of protests against retarded policies that if they do not affect directly, affect indirectly, the dogshit-insane left-academia whose words are against all good senses : we suffer from inaction, the inability to look beyond the self, we suffer from a deep introspective tendency, we suffer from a deep adherence to nonsensical and stupid ideals and stick to them as universal goods. This tendency is out of which satyagraha was most-popular and not violent forms of revolutionary actions (ala INA). We more often than not completely reject the material and focus much on the mind. That is why the novel, stupid idea of a non-violent revolution could only have been borne here. Its fucking insane, we put much of our focus on analysis and not action, like a bunch of leftoid academics who sit in their theory circles gobbling whatever crumbs of income they receive from the university to simply not act , to engage in this masturbatory practice of word-gaming each other more than the other, to analyse to read theory, to continue to analyse and not act. Of course, if they did, their clothes would get dirty. We simply wordcel too much, not have enough skin in the game or not want to get our clothes dirty.
You can introduce massive changes to the nation overnight and squash opposition very easily with the press of a button -- but no one wishes to do this, this would be a betrayal of democratic ideals, of course. A military coup can fix this nation, all you need is greater coordination within the army and the will to enact it. After that is a trial by fire to burn the nation of all extraneous (indian) elements and a complete de-recognition of it. The prussianisation (or in our case, it would be an imperial-japanisation of society) and crushing of dissensus will modernise the nation and we will be better for it, stronger for it.
We must become more violent and less introspective.
I've been frustrated a lot with the nation and the gov lately, I keep a fool's hope, but a hope nevertheless, that my generation will ACK the old and a palingenesis would occur. Its a fool's hope.
Why the nation suffers
Pseudonymous
ARYA
clib5a0jped.jpg
Nehru limited the capabilities of the Indian army and presence of army higher-ups in politics over a fear of coup's in a newly democratic nation. Moreover, structural changes to the armed-forces made it rather difficult to do so -- Each of the three arms: the navy, airforce, and the army had individual Commander-in-Chiefs. This limits collaboration and the further stamps out the vague possibilities of a coup. Cariappa, the first general of the indian army was sent off when he made the suggestions of a temporary coup to stabilise democracy.
This vasectomy of the army was really only a symptom and not the cause of what the nation suffers from. You can see it in all facets of life, in the slow bureaucracy, ineffectual local governments, the lack of protests against retarded policies that if they do not affect directly, affect indirectly, the dogshit-insane left-academia whose words are against all good senses : we suffer from inaction, the inability to look beyond the self, we suffer from a deep introspective tendency, we suffer from a deep adherence to nonsensical and stupid ideals and stick to them as universal goods. This tendency is out of which satyagraha was most-popular and not violent forms of revolutionary actions (ala INA). We more often than not completely reject the material and focus much on the mind. That is why the novel, stupid idea of a non-violent revolution could only have been borne here. Its fucking insane, we put much of our focus on analysis and not action, like a bunch of leftoid academics who sit in their theory circles gobbling whatever crumbs of income they receive from the university to simply *not act* , to engage in this masturbatory practice of word-gaming each other more than the other, to *analyse* to read theory, to continue to analyse and not act. Of course, if they did, their clothes would get dirty. We simply wordcel too much, not have enough skin in the game or not want to get our clothes dirty.
You can introduce massive changes to the nation overnight and squash opposition very easily with the press of a button -- but no one wishes to do this, this would be a betrayal of democratic ideals, of course. A military coup can fix this nation, all you need is greater coordination within the army and the will to enact it. After that is a trial by fire to burn the nation of all extraneous (indian) elements and a complete de-recognition of it. The prussianisation (or in our case, it would be an imperial-japanisation of society) and crushing of dissensus will modernise the nation and we will be better for it, stronger for it.
We must become more violent and less introspective.
I've been frustrated a lot with the nation and the gov lately, I keep a fool's hope, but a hope nevertheless, that my generation will ACK the old and a palingenesis would occur. Its a fool's hope.
