(This is a reprint from NewsBred).
“For SC, two tweets a bid to shake key pillar of democracy”. This is the headline Indian Express has given on Supreme Court holding senior lawyer Prashant Bhushan “guilty” of contempt of court. There is little doubt many in the country would hold a similar opinion. Come on, maan, It isn’t such a big deal.
I have a feeling that many who consider the Supreme Court’s pronouncement as overbearing, if not regressive, don’t recollect the exact tweets which has messed up Prashant Bhushan today, possibly for next six months.
So, let’s get the two “offensive” tweets out of the way first.
In the first tweet, an image of Chief Justice of India, SA Bobde is posted, sitting on a motorcycle. The tweet reads:
“CJI rides a Rs 50 lakh motorcycle belonging to a BJP leader at Raj Bhavan, Nagpur, without a mask or helmet when he keeps the SC in lockdown mode denying citizens their fundamental right to access justice.”
In the second tweet, Bhushan pens:
“When historians in future look back at the last 6 years to see how democracy has been destroyed in India even without a formal Emergency, they will particularly mark the role of the Supreme Court in this destruction & more particularly the role of the last 4 CJIs.”
Both these tweets were posted this year. Both have subsequently been deleted. But you can trust our good old Yogendra Yadav, a wolf in sheep’s clothing to his detractors, keeping them safe for posterity. So, here it is.
Before we look at the two sides of the argument, let’s get the insinuation by Indian Express—“Just two tweets” out of the way.
Tweets of 280 words are actually too many to shake the pillars of society. Three words, uttered to a Muslim woman not long ago, had put millions into a hostage mode for over seven decades. Karl Marx said “Workers of the world unite” and since tens of millions have lost lives to this utopian dream. Galileo Galilei muttered Eppur si muove (Yes, it moves) under his breath when he was forced to recant his belief that it’s the earth which moves around the sun. Yudhishtir told Guru Dronacharya during the Mahabharat that Ashwasthama is killed, but added almost silently “naro va kunjuru” (whether a man or an elephant). If you are a Hindu, you would believe “dharma” prevailed that day over “adharma”. If Muslims were not giving a war cry of “Allahu Akbar”, the history of the mankind would’ve been different.
I have rarely seen any newspaper go to this length to report the moment. After all, Bhushan is just a lawyer, howsoever in public eye. Beginning as lead, the story runs for nearly 1500 words. Then there is a lead editorial in disapproval over the Supreme Court’s ruling. And, of course, there is Faizan Mustafa, “from the Indian Express panel of specialists” giving his gyaan on the matter, dominating Page 17 of the Delhi edition.
If I was an individual who was object of this derision in Bhushan’s tweets, I would find it insinuating that (a) I am shown hand in gloves with the BJP—riding a motorcycle of a BJP leader in Raj Bhavan”. Clearly two narrative are being pushed here: One, Raj Bhavan in Maharashtra is presently occupied by a BJP Governor; (2) The bike belongs to a BJP leader; and thus Bobde is comfortable enough in the environment to astride it.
The second tweet is a frontal attack. It says that in the last six years, democracy has been destroyed in India and the Supreme Court has played a key role in its destruction.
These are not just two tweets. These are two DAMNING tweets. Besides accusations, these are factually wrong too, as Supreme Court elaborated in its judgement on Thursday, in response to Bhushan’s assertion that SC in a lockdown mode was denying citizens their fundamental right to access justice. Said SC:
“From 23.3.2020 to 4.8.2020, various benches of the Court have been sitting regularly and discharging their duties through video conferencing. The total number of sittings that the various benches had from 23.3.2020 to 4.8.2020 is 879. During this period, the Court has heart 12748 matters…
“…(Bhushan) has made such a scandalous and malicious statement having himself availed the right of an access to justice during the said period, not only as a lawyer but also as a litigant.”
The thrust of Supreme Court’s view was that such wanton conduct could lower the image and credibility of judiciary in the eyes of the common man for whom Courts alone are a mechanism where he could get justice.
Over the next few days, expect the pressure on judiciary to mount on this matter. The apex court is to announce the quantum of Bhushan’s punishment on August 20. You would see a concerted campaign to ensure that Prashant Bhushan gets off lightly for his crime. If he gets the maximum of six months of jail, it would send the chill down the spine of those who are in the business of targeting judiciary regularly. It would thin the ranks of axe-wielders on judicial banyan tree. It would upset the entire agenda of a certain set.
We all would see whether the Supreme Court makes an example out of Prashant Bhushan or lets him go lightly, coerced by the media pressure. Just scan your newspapers closely for next few days. I promise you a lot of fun.
(This is a reprint from NewsBred).
All Hindus, millions abroad and many times over in India, must stand up and applaud Communist leader Sitaram Yechury for stating that their epics Ramayana and Mahabharata are ample proof that Hindus have been violent in the past.
Angry? Don’t be for Yechury has hacked the very tree of his vicious ideology which swears by atheism, negates religion and treats Hindus reverence of their past as nothing better than mythology. So the logical and rational Communists are now treating Hindu’s past as real. Isn’t it a matter of celebration?
Of course a snake doesn’t let go an opportunity to inject his venom. Yechury calls out Hindus for being violent in a bid to justify the “Saffron terror” narrative which the Congress-Communist combine have worked so hard to build since independence and which now is returning in waves to create a watery grave for the peddlers.
An average Hindu is gullible to propaganda. The vicious do it as a strategy so Hindus suffer from guilt, fail to unite and thus lack pride. Hindus without identity are easier to crush. The trophy of controlling or breaking India then goes to peddlers. That’s why I try to puncture this narrative as often as I can so these peddlers are nailed. If Hindus regain their pride, these peddlers would run out of lies. Then the Big Game is over—happily for India and its majority.
In last 48 hours, two such attempts have been made—one by Sitaram Yechury and the other by Bollywood writer Javed Akhtar. Most of my Hindu friends have found themselves tongue-tied in countering them. Yechury and Akhtar have mocked Hindus who, because of their gullibility. I give you the words my brethren Hindus to stuff their filth back into their throats.
Yechury says that Ramayana and Mahabharata prove that Hindus have been violent. That it’s RSS which has tried to militarize Hindus in an ideology which is similar to fascist Mussolini (I also include similar analogy Yechury has drawn in the past between RSS-Hitler). Javed Akhtar, in response to Sri Lanka ban on veils following massive Easter Sunday suicide-bombings, mockingly tweeted that don’t leave out “ghoonghat” (head-cover of Hindus) too.
I propose below how an astute Hindu must reply to the likes of Yechury and Javed Akhtar not only to counter but also to regain their own convictions. That’s how you should shape your reply:
Mr Yechury, you say Hindus have been violent in the past. But is being violent the same as spreading “saffron terror”? You could be violent in wars, which is a matter of dharma (righteousness), but killing innocent people in suicide bomb attacks is terror. Please name any Hindu suicide-bomber from our entire history, failing which stuff your mouth.
You claim that RSS follows the Fascism/Nazism ideology. But RSS has never given a call for genocide. Fascist Mussolini left League of Nations; RSS supported it. If RSS were adherents of Nazism and Hitler, did they give a call that Muslims must not hold public office; or inter-marriages must not happen, or that “Pogroms of Muslims” was the answer? Did they ask for Muslim professors to be removed from universities after the Partition?
Further, Mr Yechury what would you say of your “God” Karl Marx who echoed Hitler’s ideology describing Jews as “arch-exploiters”? Or John F. Kennedy who praised Fascism-for-Italy and Nazism-for-Germany in the 1930s? Or our own Pandit Nehru who swore by socialism even as millions were being massacred by your ideologue grandparent (Stalin) in Russia? And if RSS isfascists/nazists, how would you describe the Quran and Sharia?
Subhas Chandra Bose was hailed in India even though he had joined hands with Japan, an ally of fascist-nazist forces. Do you condemn millions of Hindus for supporting Subhas Bose? I dare you Mr Yechury to give us your opinion on Subhas Bose.
And lastly on Javed Akhtar. A burqa can be a security threat—not a “ghoonghat”. So please don’t draw a false, mocking analogy. I can cite you dozens of example where burqas were used to enact terrorism acts. Why go far, let me give you a Bollywood analogy itself, easier to for you to recall. Did you see “Dil Se”? How do you think Manisha Koirala was trying to blow up the Republic Day parade?
And please do let us know when you’ve found a “terror” act being carried out under the guise of a “ghoonghat.” The fact is you can’t. So where do you think Hindus should shove your comments back in you?
Both Yechury and Akhtar lose no opportunity to insult Hindus. It’s for the Hindus to stand up to such inimical forces. The crux for Hindus is: Know your history and facts. Regain your pride. It would do good to you and the future of your children and grandchildren.
India won’t mind either.
Madhav Sadashiv Golwalkar needs you on his 45th death anniversary on Tuesday (June 5, 1973). Chances are he would be reviled by Leftists Sitaram Yechury, and “Liberals” Ramachandra Guha, for his alleged affinity with Adolf Hitler. It would help them paint Rashstriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) as a Fascist and Nazist force, a virulent campaign meant to neutralize the sting out of Pranab Mukherjee’s upcoming visit to RSS headquarters on June 7.
“Guruji” as Golwalkar is known, was in public eye for a long period between 1940-1973 as the second sarsangchalak of RSS. In his profuse writings, letters, articles, statements and interviews, there is NOT ONE single sentence which declares Guruji’s admiration for Hitler. Not one. Yet libraries of articles and books repeat the lie to run down the world’s biggest mass organization.
This ocean of lies floats on a mere two paragraphs which appeared in Guruji’s maiden book in 1938, “We, Our Nationhood Defined”. The book has never been reprinted since 1947. It’s been over 70 years but these two paragraphs alone is the edifice around which an entire cottage industry of RSS-bashing, Hindu-mocking has flourished. Only Shiva knows how many careers have been launched; reputations air-brushed; funds transferred to crooks reaping the harvest out of these two paragraphs.
As an analogy, why Karl Marx is not Hitler-like for he too described Jews as “arch-exploiters”? Or John F. Kennedy so, for he praised Fascism-for-Italy and Nazism-for-Germany in the 1930s? Or our own Pt. Nehru for he swore by socialism even as millions were being massacred in its name in Stalin’s Russia?
But let’s look at these two contentious paragraphs first:
“From the standpoint, sanctioned by the experience of shrewd old nations, the foreign races in Hindustan must either adopt the Hindu culture or language, must learn to respect and hold in reverence Hindu religion, must entertain no idea but those of the glorification of the Hindu race and culture, i.e. of the Hindu nation, and must lose their separate existence or merge into the Hindu race, or may stay in the country, wholly subordinated to the Hindu nation, claiming nothing, deserving no privileges, far less any preferential treatment–not even citizens’ rights.”
Let’s look at key issues in the paragraph. One, there is no call for genocide for it says “minorities can stay in the country.” The sentence “not claim any privilege” isn’t objectionable either for that’s the decree of “secularists” alone. All the democracies of the world are run by this maxim.
As for Citizens’ Rights, before we describe its context, let’s remember most Muslim countries till today exclude non-Muslims in its political decision-making system. Golwalkar’s prescription for Non-Hindus is vastly different from Sharia’s prescription for non-Muslims. Golwalkar isn’t stopping non-Hindus from bearing arms or riding a horse. So if Golwalkar/RSS are fascist, how would you describe Quran and Sharia?
Now look at the context of this sentence. In 1938, the talk of a Muslim nation was gathering wind. Muslims advocated the two-nation theory in India. Such a theory had been applied on Austria-Hungarians, Ottoman and Czarist empires. Lenin has supported it; so had USSR constitution. Muslims claimed they were distinct from Hindus by dress and customs; food and marriage; religion and holy days etc. They also lived in separate neighbourhoods. So Golwalkar was only accepting the Muslim logic.
Those advocating a Muslim nation in 1938 unambiguously expressed and defined Muslim community as a separate nation (ummah). So if you are a separate nation, how could you be a full citizen in a Hindu state? As Dr Koenraad Elst says: “Remember, the same choice was given to Kennedy (John), the first Roman catholic president of the (protestant) US. He was asked if he was loyal to Roman Catholic Church or country? He said country.”
Now let’s turn to the second paragraph in contention:
“To keep up the purity of the race and its culture, Germany shocked the world by her purging the country of the Semitic races — the Jews. Race pride at its highest has been manifested here. Germany has also shown how well nigh impossible it is for Races and cultures having differences going to the root, to be assimilated into one united whole, a good lesson for us in Hindustan to learn and profit by.”
This paragraph again must be viewed in the context of 1938. This was the year when Hitler was hugely popular in India and no less around the world. He had transformed Germany; challenged the order of colonial powers. Why, even after WW II, Charles de Gaulle was spewing anti-Jews views. Eugenic politics was on in US and Scandinavia till the 1970s. The “Hitler Salute” was fairly common well into the 1950s. Democratic countries were racists and publicly proud of it. Subhas Bose was hailed in India even though he had joined hands with Japan, an ally of Fascist-Nazist forces.
Just to highlight the double standards, look at how Mahatma Gandhi shed tears on destruction of British Parliament and Westminister Abbey in WW II. But he had no such feel for monuments destroyed in Germany. Was England’s record in India any better than Germany in other countries in 1940?
All Golwalkar said was that Germany proved two nations in one state was not feasible. He drew an analogy but never supported Nazism. He could’ve done so in 1938 since England was still not at war with Germany.
If Golwalkar was a Nazi, he wouldn’t have extensively quoted Western scholars in his work. For instance he approved of John Stuart Mills’ words: “Free institutions are impossible in a country made up of different nationalities.” Golwalkar publicly believed in the authority of League of Nations (while fascist Italy left League of Nations in 1937).
Golwalkar never said Muslims must not hold public office; or intermarriage must be clamped down upon; or that “pogroms of Muslims” was the answer. He didn’t ask for Muslim professors to be removed from universities after the Partition. Golwalkar looked for assimilation of minorities; not dissimilation like Hitler did. What you would never be told is that US, England and France etc—all democratic countries—had refused rights to minorities in League of Nations. They all stood for assimilation of minorities. And so did Golwalkar.
Golwalkar had seen how Muslims in India had appealed to foreign Muslim powers, like Amir of Afghanistan, during the Khilafat Movement. His appeal for their assimilation in the 1930s thus appears perfectly legitimate. Those criticizing Golwalkar, must tell us what was RSS’ position during WW II? They must also be asked: Why don’t you quote from Deendayal Upadhyaya’s Integral Humanism, formulated in 1965 and the official ideology of RSS? Every BJP member has to swear by it.
In the same book, Golwalkar says: “The superiority complex of the White Man blurs their vision. (We.., Pg 6, 11).” Does it look like a comment of “White-Only” Nazis?
An American student who travelled Europe in the 1930s, wrote to his parents saying fascism is right for Italy; Nazism for Germany.” This student was no other than John F. Kennedy. Nobody calls Kennedy as Fascist or Nazist. Those who have no moral compunction while doing the same to Golwalkar and RSS, are at best agents of Left-Liberal mafia. They feed on chaos and anarchy; bloodshed and genocide in a society. Spot them in the light of Pranab Mukherjee’s visit to RSS Headquarters on Thursday.