Here is the “evolution” of the communist propagandists from the Delhi “Historians” Group: Post cold war, from socialist, Marxist, these worthies now flatter themselves with epithets like progressive, liberal. Any other talk of “ability to learn and evolve” is pure hogwash. How many of these worthies and their indoctrinated students expressed any dismay, leave alone protested, when communist terrorists in Nepal burnt down an entire university? But of course, surely, that was for the greater good of the coming revolution. Hang on, I should correct myself. Surely, that progressive act was for the greater good of secularism and liberalism in “South Asia”. It is hardly surprising that these ideologically and politically motivated academics serve as good Gunga Dins of Western Euro-American centric academics.
Over the last year, I have made a new acquaintance. We shall call him Shriman Savadhan. Shriman Savadhan presents a perfect example of what I like to call the safe Hindu. This individual shows every indication of having some awareness of the sorry geo-political state of Hindus. He displays some modicum of knowledge of how the farce that is Indian secularism is simply a euphemism for official government sponsored shenanigans to suppress a Hindu revival. He also displays some awareness of the machinations of the Marxists and their occidental Eurocentric associates against the Hindu civilization of India. However, that is the extent of his involvement in Hindu affairs.
When I bring up the matter of certain scholarly books that provide detailed critiques of these dangerous paradigms, he gets disinterested. When I mention certain venues where he could get involved (like volunteering in Hindu missions) to further Hindu causes, he gets even more disinterested. When I mention certain political developments which if comes to fruition will lead to an even worse state for Hindus, he just doesn’t seem to care. Like for instance, Shriman Savadhan is simple not interested in reading books by Sita Ram Goel, Koenraad Elst, Ram Swarup, RC Mazumdar, etc. He sees no reason to read Rajiv Malhotra’s Breaking India. Even though he does seem to have some concern about the foreign funded change of religious demographics in India. He supports the Christian evangelist Rick Perry to become the American president in 2012, for reasons connected to, get this, Mexicans in US! Shriman Savadhan however does realize, in no uncertain terms, that Mr. Perry is backed by vociferous religious fanatics, and his becoming president of USA will herald a huge convert-heathens-in-India campaign.
Shriman Savadhan is not a fool, a communist, a Hindu-hater or a crypto-convert to the rAkShasamata or pretamata (credit to the learned blogger at mAnasa–taraMgiNI for coining these apt terms). He very strictly follows certain Hindu dietary norms and has on more than one occasion, in private conversation, spoken out against some of the dangers that hang over Hindus in India. Yet, he very assiduously avoids taking any meaningful action like reading books to educate himself and his friends and family, or getting involved with any Hindu organization. Unfortunately, there are countless such characters who are simply not interested in doing anything meaningful for Hindu causes, even though they have some awareness of the issues. Question is, why?
Because of the Marxist-secularist toxicity pervading India since the start of Nehruvian Stalinism which has subverted school textbooks and popular/news media, any sort of pride and involvement in advancing Hindu causes has been colored as politically incorrect. The success of the left establishment lies in subverting the discourse such that their ideological interests have been colored as politically correct, and anything contrary is laden with secular self-consciousnesses and imagined guilt. Unfortunately, this has pervaded very deep into the native psyche. As can be seen in the case of Shriman Savadhan. Which is why you will find many well-meaning folks going out of their way to shed very public tears for the “secular” stone pelters while giving lip service to the “communal fascistic” Hindus driven out through a campaign of rape, murder and mayhem. Never mind that in private they might very well feel otherwise. This sorry situation is kept running through a systematic campaign of manufactured outrage, hyperventilated sanctimony, history and social science academic departments and textbooks as brainwashing tools, and other such shenanigans. The latest in this series is the proposed Communal Violence Prevention bill which in no uncertain terms is reminiscent of Nazi laws against Jews, and has the single objective of keeping suppressed and eventually obliterating Hindus from India. No wonder, over generations, countless people like Shriman Savadhan have cultivated the need to be very negated and defensive about their Hindu identity. No wonder they feel uncomfortable working with Hindu organizations or even studying scholarly works that explain matters of critical importance to Hindus. No wonder they feel the need to keep their Hindu identity locked up in a closet. No wonder they are more comfortable taking “safe” positions of subservience and non-involvement by not risking epithets like communal, fascistic, etc, that are often thrown at those who assert their Hindu identity or speak up on matters of importance for Hindus. These people are the safe Hindus.
The safe Hindu phenomenon is also observed in case of some public figures who have sympathies for Hindu causes, or who had themselves started out as avid, assertive Hindus. It is common for some of these folks who themselves seemingly start out as assertive, proud, unabashed Hindus to take positions against their former constituency for careerist compulsions. It does however also reflect a certain snobbishness that many acquire with power, success and publicity. This particular brand of safe Hindus will be dissected in another post.
The problem in case of the safe Hindus is that they will do everything not to do anything, even if that involves reading a book connected to revival and survival of Hindus. This is largely due to an aversion for potentially being associated with a cause that has been over the years cunningly colored as politically incorrect, never mind that the cause itself is veracious and of crucial importance. As one commentator astutely said, the need for these safe Hindus is to don the mantle of a collective Shiva and drink the poison of being painted as villains and “fascists”, so that future generations can breathe the air of freedom and dignity as worthy inheritors of the Vedic civilization.
There is a professor of Sanskrit at Harvard who has on more than one occasion thrown hateful innuendos at Hindus and Hinduism. On one occasion he also made slanderous remarks on a genetics researcher of Indian origin since his research results were unfavorable to his pet theory. This fellow has defended all of his hate-filled bile under free speech and academic freedom. In this regard 3 useful documents:
- Kanchan Gupta’s article: Harvard Don denigrates Hindus
- A well compiled dossier
- Slanderous remarks on an Indian genetics researcher
I believe readers are also familiar with Kancha Ilaiah, author of “Why I am not a Hindu” (WIMNAH), and “Post Hindu India” (PHI). Both these books are outright hate manifestos against Hindus. WIMNAH makes caricatures of Hindus reminiscent of Nazi propaganda against Jews. PHI subtly (or not) makes a clarion call for civil war in India. There were some protests at Osmania University where this fellow is a professor of political science, and he defended his writings under academic freedom and free speech.
There is also this other character John D., a rabid anti-Hindu who used to write for Dalitstan.org, a site which was listed under a hate-patrol watch group in North America which lists hate sites on the internet.
All these characters are celebrated as secular, liberal and what not. Why?
- Because the target of their unadulterated hate are the savage heathen idolaters who need to be made subservient and converted to the true faith.
- Because the discourse is conveniently subverted to suit agendas as needed.
Consider the example of this comparative religion professor in Harvard, who heads a project (as it now turns out) fancifully named as “Pluralism”. This individual in an article on this project very eloquently says,
Dialogue does not mean everyone at the “table” will agree with one another. The process of public discussion will inevitably reveal both areas of agreement and of disagreement. Pluralism involves the commitment to being at the table — with one’s commitments.
Now, this very individual proposed an amendment to exclude Swamy’s economics courses. Exclusion of his courses of course being a euphemism for sacking. Clearly, as it turns out, her disagreement with Swamy’s views implied he had to be excluded from the table. The hell with whatever she earlier wrote about dialogue! Because now some of the native heathens are at an antagonistic position, the discourse is easily subverted to suit sundry agendas.
A key feature in this chicanery is the ready role played by the sellouts among the natives who for ideological and/or careerist reasons act as enablers of the hypocrisy and subversion. The example in this particular episode is provided by the Indian origin communist leaning love partner of an Islamist academic of Pakistani origin, who either out of idiocy or arrogance made one of the most nonsensical analogies I have ever heard. Unfortunately, as history teaches us, the American “progressives” looking to get their dirty work done with help from native enablers, are merely following the path laid out by the “secular” invaders starting late pre-medieval period and then by the “civilizing” colonizers later on. A big reason for both these groups being able to gain upper hand was conniving natives looking to gain personal success at the cost of country and community. What else is new!
Personally I don’t subscribe to all of Swamy’s views, and given his track record I tend to take his stands and his intentions with a pinch of salt. I disagree with some views he expressed in the DNA piece on Islamic terrorism, while I agree with some. I feel he went overboard with that potentially ill-advised piece and blundered by not providing scholarly, genetics and history references to back up some of the assertions he made. But the double standards in hounding Swamy while providing a free run to other characters like some mentioned in this post, provides some pointers.
- It is extremely foolish to look for certificate of legitimacy from institutions in nations that are at civilizational odds. Unfortunately even many institutions in our own country have been subverted by people at ideological odds with our civilization.
- Such institutions have their own and that of their in-situ characters’ interests at heart. Not those of the savage idol worshipping heathens.
- Such institutions are mostly infested by academics of certain ideological bent, who are at odds with Hindu revival and survival.
- The effort should be to render such institutions and their agendas irrelevant.
- The effort should be to turn the gaze back on their civilization using Hindu mores and Hindu institutions.
- The effort should be to cut down to size, intellectually decimate, make irrelevant and publicly advertise the treachery of those natives who take the side of the opponents for ideological or careerist reasons.
The adjective Gandhian has been associated with people who embrace the path of non-violence, pacifism and other similar dhArmika ethos to meet their goals for the common good of many. However lately, it has become fashionable and very useful for sundry entities with vested interests to apply the label “Gandhian” on themselves either through their own chicanery, through some ideological bedfellow(s) or through some well-meaning but naïve enabler(s). In fact, being called a Gandhian is a sure shot way for these perfidious entities to potentially legitimize and further their real agendas.
Not too long ago, a notorious professional anti-India activist, called the mass-murdering, bomb-blasting, mass-raping Maoist terrorists as “Gandhians with guns”. A very well-known Indian Marxist historian who has argued that the entire Indian civilization, and by extension the entire Indian state needs to be dismantled, not too long ago, sought to position herself as a Gandhian. Gandhi relentlessly worked for an independent, sovereign Indian state and longingly spoke of a rAma rAjya. Gandhi died with the name of shrI rAma in his lips. Gandhi spoke of bhArata mAtA with utmost respect and reverence. We can’t say that many of these eminences who seek to apply the label “Gandhian” on themselves have the same sort of reverence for the symbols of Indian civilization. Indeed, these eminences have the exact opposite feelings for India’s civilizational heritage, which they actively seek to dismantle and balkanize in preparation for the people’s’ revolution.
Over decades, these eminences have misappropriated labels like “secular” and “liberal” to serve their ideological causes. “Gandhian” is one such veneer used by many of these ideologues to mask their perfidious agendas. But we suppose in kaliyuga, anything goes. As it is we have many invading supremacist religiosity driven mass murderers and heinous religious totalitarians from late pre-medieval to late medieval period of Indian history either sympathetically treated, whitewashed or outrageously positioned as symbols of a concocted syncretism in a massive campaign of outright history engineering. Maybe some day in the future, Ajmal Kasab of the 26/11 Mumbai attacks notoriety too will be celebrated as a Gandhian, as a symbol of non-violence and syncretism. And senile Hindus, or whatever remains of Hindus, fooled by the Marxist-secularist wool pulled over their eyes, will go offer their respects at the tomb of this murderer. Or should we call him “Gandhian”?
“Albatrossinflight” over at Centre Right India makes some interesting arguments in favor of embracing the anti-corruption movement. I have already expressed some of my reservations in an earlier article in this blog. As someone who has always been wary of the likes of Ford Foundation, Rockefeller funded do-gooder and their more-often-than-not insidious (or blatant in some cases) anti-India, dharma-hostile agendas, I am still skeptical of certain constituents of the Indian Against Corruption campaign. While the “banishment” (?) of that charlatan in swamI veSha, the “demotion” (?) of the socialist Bhushan duo, the possible “casting aside” (?) of communist agents like Kavita Krishnan offer some incentive for support, there are still some caveats. Like for instance, why are they aiding reductionist pontifications of the imagery of bhArata mAtA, a sacred symbol of/during India’s freedom struggle? What are the vested interests behind the assiduous efforts to avoid dhArmika symbolism and yet concerted efforts at providing a platform for non-dhArmika religious activities? What about the preposterous need of the Lokpal appointing committee comprising last two Magsaysay award winners, or Nobel Laureates of Indian origin? Never mind that they might very well not be Indian citizens. Why are they opposing privately funded NGOs being included under the purview of Lokpal? Corrections are welcome if these points from the draft of the proposed bill have since changed.
It is also my view that the process of appointing a Lokpal will find it hard to escape political machinations. It will instead result in creating a framework of a parallel bureaucracy or worse unelected ideologues foisting agendas à la NAC. The answer to corruption is in more economic reforms, in an economy that is free market in true sense of the term. Furthermore, those agent(s) at the top of the political hierarchy who have dubious histories and whose relatives abroad have collated stratospheric wealth with seemingly no sources of income would have to be dismantled. When the one at the top is corrupt to the core, those below cannot be expected to be any better.
That said, after close to fours months since I last expressed my views on this matter, I find myself somewhat agreeing with “Albatrossinflight” that dhArmika nationalists should seek to support the anti-corruption movement (while being wary of some of its constituents at the same time) for now. That people cutting across economic divides have expressed support for the anti-corruption campaign speaks volumes about Indian electorates’ frustration with the stratospheric corruption in the current dispensation in Delhi. Furthermore, the perfidious anti-national poverty-mongering communist brigade must be prevented from hijacking the movement (any further than they already have) to serve their ideological agendas. Case in point, take note of the comrades here longing for clarion calls to “revolution” in rAmalIlA, instead of the patriotic vande mAtaraM. The movement against corruption can be supported, but with an alertness against attempts to (a) introduce backdoor socialism (b) provide platforms to anti-national ideologues for propagating propaganda against patriotic symbolism. There is indeed an inkling of an opportunity here to seize the moment and dethrone, and eventually dismantle the political hierarchy that has relentlessly looted India. The jury however is still out on whether the opportunity will be grabbed or self-goal will be scored.