(This is a reprint from NewsBred).
People-on-the-street is citizenry against the State. It affected the United States from continuing the Vietnam War. It brought down Charles de Gaulle in France in the 1960s as students came out in droves. Arab Spring had millions on the streets and toppled many governments in MENA (Middle East North Africa) region. “The Maidan” revolution in Ukraine bears a similar testimony. And Hong Kong hasn’t faded from memory in so-called “democracy” protests. India was in the grip of a similar meltdown on CAA (Citizenship Amendment Act) before Corona Virus took the matter in its own hand.
Why people-on-the-street are a nightmare for the State is easy to understand. It could encompass a whole range of emotions: Anger, Violence, Hunger, Grief, Helplessness etc. It’s moving at a human level. Images connect the rest with the misery rolling on the roads. Slowly the whole citizenry gets on the back of the moving vulnerable.
It’s known States can’t do much if people rise against it. They either freeze themselves into inaction which only brings a domino effect on the “volume” of protests. Or if they resort to violent curbs, the matter goes out of hands and the world is up in arms. Stark images make headlines worldwide. United Nations, European Union parliament, rival nations, human rights groups pile on the pressure. Political rivals within the State smell blood in the pool. The State staggers. The nation stops.
It’s now well known that Indian prime minister Narendra Modi has made countless enemies on his nationalist agenda. Nationalism upsets powers of the world. These powers have swindled the world in the name of “globalization” and “free trade.” Their maxim is “World without borders”. In nationalism, they see a phenomenon where a State is putting Nation first. That’s why they hate Modi. That’s why they have an angst against Donald Trump. That’s how they see an existential threat in Putin. That’s why Xi is an elephant in the room to them.
Who are these powers? Well, elaborating on it would take my focus away from this piece. Nevertheless, a passing mention is in order. These powers are the ones who control money. If you control money, you control governments, control media and movies, which in turn allows you to control humanity. Money in our world is controlled by Federal Reserve and City of London and a clutch of international bankers. You don’t see much of them in our newspapers. But if you are aware of International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank (WB), you get the picture. George Soros is the only name I could suggest for the uninitiated.
Such forces were in work to hurt India on the pretext of CAA. But then Corona Virus happened. It threw a spanner in their machinations. The issue of migrants then fell in their lap. Migrants on the road served the same purpose as the CAA protestors did. They couldn’t care less about the cause or misery. “People-on-the-street” was good enough.
We would never know how lakhs of migrants gathered at a bus station in the Capital even as the lockdown was in place. Or how a similar movement thronged railway stations in Mumbai. It’s these pictures which anti-National forces feed on; if they don’t create it in the first place.
Western media described it as the “biggest movement of people since the Partition.” Indian mainstream media led the frenzy. The incidence of Tablighi Jamaat didn’t hold them back for long. They are again back on “migrants” theme. Harsh Mander, Barkha Dutt and their likes are busy with their poisonous pens. Indian Express isn’t letting it go. Nobody has died but a Front Page story a day is their staple diet. To them, Migrants is bigger than deaths and infections caused by Tablighi markaz.
Make no mistake that migrants is a real issue. They want to go back home. Either to be with their family. Or attend to their farms. But it’s also a fact that Indian states have made resources to feed and house them. Migrants are closer to medical help under states than they would be in villages. Isn’t it practical? What if they carry infection to villages where medical help of the scale seen in districts would be impossible to replicate? Everyone is going through hardships. Migrants are no exceptions. Nobody has died out of hunger. Or neglect. These are the days of lockdowns. For the larger good. Personal inconveniences are the least Indians could suffer for the nation.
As things stand, migrants would move towards homes from April 20 onwards. Such arrangements are being made. Still trust the Lutyens Media not to let it go in a hurry. Already some are evoking the image of “detention centres” with the venues where migrants are being put up. Images would still do the rounds. You see, “People-on-the-road” is their design in Modi’s second tenure. They would persist with it in rest of Modi’s tenure.
Dear Folks, you have been warned.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi has said that “Indian Communists do not respect India’s history, culture or spirituality,” while condemning the “most shameful” behavior of Pinaryi Vijayan’s Communist LDF government on the Sabrimala Temple issue.
Predictably, the CPI (M) has gone ballistic against the comment on its twitter handle but I ask what’s there to argue about really?
Let’s take India’s pre-independence history. Didn’t communists in Bengal assembly support The Partition? (It’s an irony though that communists, like Leftist Amartya Sen had to flee East Pakistan to India whose unity they had betrayed). Wasn’t CPI (Communist Party of India) officially against the Quit India movement?
Or the annals of India after Independence. Didn’t the CPI chief B.T. Randive termed India’s freedom as fake (“yeh azadi jhooti hai”) and called for an armed revolution in 1948? Who do you think a section of Communists supported in the 1962 Indo-China War? (E.M.S. Namboodiripad among others argued in favour of China and dubbed India as the aggressor). Isn’t the pro-Chinese faction of those days is the Communist Party of India (Marxist) today? Didn’t the CPI (M) parrot the line of its masters in China in opposing the historic Indo-US nuclear deal in 2007?
And what to say of the “Eminent Historians” from the stable of Communism who have butchered the Indian history in India’s text books and academia. For instance, are you told the story of Battle of Talikota of 1565 when Vijaynagar Empire which had two Muslims as its main generals who, at the last minute, betrayed the legendary Hindu kingdom and went to the other side? (It practically ended the golden era of Hindu renaissance).
And how do you think the story of destruction of Hindu temples by invading Muslims is told to you? Famous Indologist Dr. Koenraad Elst points out the instance that invading Muslims are blamed only for destroying 80 temples in India. Though one of these 80 entries read: Qutubuddin Aibak, the military general of Muhammad Ghouri, destroyed 1000 temples in Varanasi!!!
And how do you think dreaded Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb’s destruction of all the temples in Varanasi is explained away? That it was due to a Brahmiin conspiracy as one of Muslim princes had been abducted and hidden away in a temple? Any historical proof? My foot.
Can Indian communists deny that one of the main planks of their ideology is atheism? Isn’t it a fact that one of their leaders, Brinda Karat once led a savage attack against Baba Ramdev? What’s been their stance when the Kanchi Shankaracharya was sent to jail? Or on Sri Sri Ravi Shankar who gets targeted often? If these men don’t matter to you then isn’t Modi justified in claiming that Indian Communists do not respect India’s history, culture or spirituality?
Would these communists ever confess that Stalin killed more people than Hitler did before or during the Second World War? Would they acknowledge the genocides of a Mao Zedong or a Pol Pot? Or is that genocide of millions don’t matter in this case while a stray lynching sees them paint the town in red? What was their stance when Salman Rushdie’s book “Satanic Verses” was banned in India?
So thorough is Communists hold on our textbooks and academics that anyone who holds a contrary opinion is never allowed to rise up the academic ladder. But all those who fall in line are conferred with position and prestige.
There is a lot more which could be said about Communists and Naxalites, including the Urban Naxals, but this must wait—some other day, some other time.
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.
Ramachandra Guha and Harsh Mander began—and hopefully ended—“the minority space” series in Indian Express on Tuesday. On the Day of Judgment—for they would prefer such an option rather than the presence of Bhagwan Vishnu—the duo would be hard pressed to explain the deviousness of their heart; the venoms of their actions.
Over the last fortnight or so, Indian Express has almost daily pushed this “minority space” agenda on its edit pages. This stems from the fear of Left-Liberals that, God forbids, if Muslims—and Dalits—were able to recognize that BJP and Modi are their best friends, the last plank of their survival would sink and take them down too in the vast ocean of human junk and wastefulness.
The agenda of these two academic/activist charlatans is clear: Make Muslims fearfully conscious of their separateness from the Hindu majority so that they are further pushed into a seized mentality and a common ground with Hindus is never created. Create Hinduphobia so the Muslims are not able to see the deviousness of Congress, BSP, Left who have done practically nothing for the minority in the last 70 years. The idea is to deny Hindus and Muslims a common ground.
Guha and Mander would skillfully hide the fact that out of 125 Muslim-majority seats in Uttar Pradesh, 84 went to BJP in the last assembly elections. That BJP has 79 Dalit MPs, 549 Dalit MLAs and one Dalit president.
While they beat their breasts and bemoan Muslims being treated as second-class citizens in Hindu-majority India, you would never see them acknowledge that it was Muslims who plunged the dagger of partition into the heart of this nation. You would never find them question Asaduddin Owaisi as to when the latter swears by the sanctity of the Constitution, what problem he has with the protection it offers to cows; or when its core ethos ask for a Uniform Civil Code.
You would never see them encourage Muslims to let Hindus have their way with the Ram Janmabhoomi. After all, even in austere places like Saudi Arabia it is common to move Masjid out of the way, in case infrastructural or other such need arises. Why, just four years ago, there was even a proposal to move Prophet Muhammad’s tomb! After all, Quran ordains that Namaaz could be read anywhere, it doesn’t need a Masjid for the act. While Namaaz could thus be performed even on roads, there can only be one Ram Janmabhoomi. Guha and Mander would never ask Muslims to make this one small gesture and see the flood of goodwill which would emanate from the majority. Imagine how much strength and unity just one gesture could do to the idea of a unified and strong India.
Guha and Mander would never highlight the fact that the 1857 War of Independence was an act of revolt by the Hindus who nevertheless chose a Muslim—Mughal Emperor Bahadur Shah Zafar—to be their leader in the struggle.
You would never see them making an appeal to Muslims to do meaningful reforms. After all, there is a great deal of truth that unlike Christianity went through a Reformation Age, and Hindus had the Bhakti Movement to cleanse the outdated practices, Muslims perhaps never quite clinically reevaluate if a few of Quran’s maxims needed a debate. You would never find Guha or Mander question the Muslim leadership on their lack of progressive agenda down the centuries to the present modern age.
Guha even bemoans that Hindus were once led by Nehru-Gandhi and now by Modi-Shah. He would never reflect if this change is because Hindus feel Nehru and Gandhi betrayed them and the nation during the Independence struggle by appeasing Muslims—which led to thousands of Hindus lives lost during the Khilafat movement and Direct Action Day– and causing the Partition.
Men like Guha and Mander would show a trishul as a sign of Hindu fundamentalism; they would never analyse why such a majority still treats three Khans as their superstars. Why an APJ Abdul Kalam is loved and respected by practically every educated Hindu.
Most tellingly, Guha and Mander are now marginalized voices because of their selective truths. Just look at the reactions Guha has managed on his twitter handle. By mid-day, it had barely touched 100 reactions. And most of them were scathing to his piece that has appeared in Indian Express on Tuesday.
A point about Indian Express too (And The Wire, predictably joined the chorus). While they pick up every major (Guha) and minor (Apporvanand) voice to create fear psychosis about “minority space”, why there is never an intellectual giant such as Subramaniam Swamy or Rajiv Malhotra being asked to present their viewpoints? Why stray incidents are picked and highlighted to paint the entire Hindu community in bad light?
Besides, who wins if India loses?
This is a reprint from NewsBred.
The fresh violence against Hindus in West Bengal calls for the collective conscience of this country.
DALALS (Damn Left and Lutyens Scribes), as expected, first ignored and then dumbed it down to the fabricated Governor-Chief Minister spat.
Political parties such as Congress, Communists and regional heavyweights, avoided mention of any atrocity against the Hindus. Rahul Gandhi trained his eyes and concern on PM’s silence on China.
Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), flogged everyday as the face of a communalist Saffron, haven’t uttered a word in anger. (So next time they are termed bigots, use this instance to shut the pseudo-sikulars up).
But then what’s new?
No less than 600 temples were destroyed in Bangladesh in 1992. Thousands of Hindus were killed and raped; paraded naked on the streets of Bhola town, shops looted, deities desecrated.
There was little outrage in media or from any State.
In Pakistan, among the near 300 temples destroyed, the demolition of one was personally supervised by a minister in Lahore. Dozens of Hindus were murdered.
The collective silence of the world was deafening.
The exodus of Kashmiri Pundits is a reality. A community uprooted and displaced still carries psychological and financial scars.
But don’t expect it to shake the conscience of this country’s intelligentsia or media.
The partition of 1947 created a Muslim state in Pakistan and afforded them the “freedom.” But the Hindus “haven’t been recognized as a nation or a state nor a control over their own homeland,” as Abhas Chatterjee, author of The Concept of Hindu Nation, mentioned.
If any Jew is treated unfairly in any part of the world, the State of Israel, as their representative, loses no time in raising the issue. Contrast this with the case of Sunil Wadhera, a Hindu who died in an accident in Saudi Arabia a few years ago. As against a policy of compensation of 6-7 lakh dinars offered to a Muslim, Wadhera was extended only 17,000 dinars. Reason, he was a Kafir. “The value of his life was no more than a paltry sum,” wrote Abhas Chatterjee “What’s significant is that even against such an inhuman, outrageous affront, there was no State which could raise its voice on behalf of the Hindu.”
What had upset the discerners was that India, which all along had supported the Arab cause in Palestine, didn’t take up Wadhera’s matter with the Saudi government.
As scholar Dr. Koenraad Elst says: “The Hindu death toll in post-Independence riots in East Bengal already outnumbers the Muslim death toll in Hindu-Muslim clashes in the whole of South Asia by far.” Yet you would hardly find this mentioned in any discourse in mainstream media and academia.
In the East Bengal genocide of 1971, the main victims of Pakistan army’s brutality were Hindus (and this doesn’t include Bengalis). That genocide of millions outnumbers all other massacres in Partition and post-Partition by a mile. Yet, all governments, be it in India, South Asia or West, discourage any discourse on it. (But the unfortunate killing of a missionary such as Graham Staines or the cow vigilantism by a fringe is drummed up again and again as a proof of reactionary Hindus).
India’s Constitution has nothing recognizably Hindu about it. India’s Constitution was but an adapted version of the British Government of India Act of 1935. It was decreed by a ruling class of Indians who were largely lawyers of Western moorings.
The preamble of the Indian Constitution talks of justice, equality and liberty—all of them are Western notions, a byproduct of the French Revolution. Where’s Swami Vivekananda’s cry of Dharma and spirituality, renunciation and service, tolerance and harmony?, as Chatterjee observed.
The first thing Colonizers do is to make Colonies appear inferior to them, particularly in the matter of their culture. The first set of India’s ruling class more or less continued the depressing trend: a trend where everything connected with the essence of the land was derided as worthless. Observe the contempt of this anglicized set of DALALS today on the basic ethos of this land and you would have your answer.
Till Modi came, only Lal Bahadur Shastri and PV Narasimha Rao could be said to be practicing Hindus among the Prime Ministers; not the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty or VP Singh even though they never abandoned Hinduism.
The list of Hindus’ grievances are many: From the Nehru-Liaquat Pact of 1950 which stops India from taking up the maltreatment of Hindus in Pakistan; to the prickly Article 30 of the Constitution; to the issue of Conversion; and to the matter of control over temple management; to name just a few, the majority in this country is increasingly mindful of being ignored by all and sundry.
The violence against Hindus in West Bengal (and Kerala) and the deafening silence of every stakeholder who claims to have interest of India at heart, is a historical fact. Hindus can’t understand why Ram Navmi is “communal” and “Muharram” a religious festival in certain parts of this country.
The last word of this piece must belong to Chatterjee alone. “We are still a subjugated, enslaved nation. Nehruvian Secularists are not our own people…We have to liberate our motherland from their stranglehold and earn our freedom.”
This is a reprint from NewsBred.
Nathuram Godse killed Mahatma Gandhi on 30th January 1948. We also know the provocation was Gandhi’s insistence to newly-formed Indian government that Pakistan be paid the obligated Rs.55 crores from the treasury.