Beware of media painting BJP and RSS as fascists – David Frawley

Rahul Gandhi & Chidambaram

Acharya David Frawley (Pandit Vamadeva Shastri)Apart from manufacturing perpetual outrage, the Left has no positive agenda for national growth or futuristic development of the country. Congress and the Left are leaderless and self-destructing, with a number of their prominent representatives becoming figures of public derision. – Dr David Frawley

The old Leftist rhetoric that has dominated India’s politics for decades is now falling on deaf ears and becoming rejected by voters. Both recent UP and Delhi elections indicate this trend. Though the old Indian media continues to raise a shrill campaign of Leftist outrage against the dangers of Narendra Modi and the BJP, voters have gone over to them in a landslide.

Strategies

Special media and campaign strategies were implemented in India prior to 2014 to keep the BJP out of power, and after Modi’s victory in 2014 to weaken his influence and remove him from power. These strategies reflect the propaganda approaches of the old socialist-communist mind-set, with exaggerations, allegations, and name-calling, but little by way of actual facts. Let us examine the most relevant of these charges.

The charge of fascism has been made for decades against BJP/RSS, even comparing the Sangh with the Islamic State. Yet, the fact is that the BJP national and state governments are the most competent in recent India, doing more for the poor and to improve administration and infrastructure. This is a welcome change from the corruption of the old Congress dynasty and its regional warlords, with their divide-and-rule policies that prevented development and perpetuated social unrest. The truth is that the Left historically has promoted militancy and genocide, extending to the murdering of Hindu workers in communist Kerala and Maoist violence in India today.

Similarly, a charge of intolerance is raised against Hindus, as if they were the main group inhibiting harmony in India. This includes exaggerating or inventing Hindu attacks on Muslims and Christians. The fact is that Hindus are more tolerant than any other religious group because they don’t follow any theology of salvation and damnation. Far from suppressing other religions, Hindus continue to be targeted by missionary aggression inside India and outside. In addition, Christians and Muslims in India have more freedom than in any other country in Asia. Hindus in Pakistan comparatively have a marginal existence and are being systematically eliminated.

The charge of majoritarianism is another key part of the anti-Modi agenda with the claim is that there is now an oppressive Hindu majority in power. Actually democracy is majority-ruled, so the majority does have a right to rule within the bounds of the law. In this regard, the majority in India, which is largely Hindu, is much more accommodating than the majority in any Islamic country. Those who make the charge of majoritarianism have long been cultivating minority vote banks, defined on caste and religious grounds. They are afraid of national unity that would compromise their electoral base.

The charge of Hindu or saffron terrorism is perhaps the most extreme Leftist claim. This is one of the biggest falsifications brought about by affording repeated media attention to a few isolated cases eventually dismissed as false. All Hindu terrorist charges could highlight is a Hindu woman swami, Sadhvi Pragya, kept in jail without bail for nine years until the case against her was dismissed for lack of evidence. Compare this to ISIS, Al Qaeda, and Taliban, with their organised armies, massacres and terrorist attacks that the media hesitates to call Islamic terror.

Danger

Cow vigilantism and the attempt to make cow protectors as dangerous as ISIS and jihadi terrorism are false equivalents. Incidents of violence relative to cow smuggling and cow protection have occurred for decades, but this is hardly a Hindu attack on non-Hindus, much less a national security issue. In addition, India, like all countries, would benefit by less meat in the diet. Only in India do liberals emphasise beef eating rather than reduction of unnecessary meat consumption.

Assault on student freedoms relative to JNU student protests is another frequent item of Leftist outrage. Yet JNU communist student unions have long promoted anti-government, pro-Maoist, pro-Kashmiri separatist sentiments under the guise of freedom of expression. India’s sympathetic media has portrayed such students as innocent victims of state aggression, for questioning their motives or actions. The same JNU students try to prevent any pro-Hindu speakers from doing programmes.

Allegation

A new allegation is the danger of having a swami as chief minister, mixing religion and politics, with Yogi Adityanath taking up the reins of Uttar Pradesh. Since before Mahatma Gandhi, a spiritual voice has been present in Indian politics and social discourse. Yogi Adityanath is performing better as CM than did the previous so-called secular government known for its corruption and decay of law and order, and the Yogi is gaining respect accordingly. It is performance that matters today, not simply name or background.

Apart from manufacturing perpetual outrage, the Left has no positive agenda for national growth or futuristic development of the country. Congress and the Left are leaderless and self-destructing, with a number of their prominent representatives becoming figures of public derision.

Meanwhile the BJP has come to represent aspirational India at both economic and cultural levels. There is nothing wrong with such national pride and enthusiasm. It is a long overdue change from the old socialist era in which individual initiative was blocked and India’s culture denigrated. Such unity is needed for India to progress in the world of nations, which the Nehruvian-Marxist alliance could never deliver.

India has a great dharmic civilisation with much to offer the world. The world should be happy that India is willing to move forward according to its own civilisational ethos and no longer function as another failed socialist state looking for global sympathy. Yet, it seems the Leftist media was happier with a Lalu Prasad and his backward Bihar than Narendra Modi and his new dynamic India. Fortunately, voters can no longer be deceived. – Daily-O, 13 May 2017

» Dr. David Frawley (Pandit  Vamadeva Shastri) D. Litt., is a teacher in the Vedic tradition. He is recognized as a Vedacharya, and includes in his unusual wide scope of studies Ayurveda, Yoga, Vedanta and Vedic astrology, as well as the ancient Vedic teachings going back to the Rigveda.

Sitaram Yechury at JNU

Communists see politics in everything – Anirban Ganguly

Brinda Karat (CPI-M)

Dr Anirban GangulyIt is the essential refusal of the Left to acknowledge the right to disagree—in the political and intellectual sphere—that has vitiated India’s political atmosphere since many decades. – Dr Anirban Ganguly

When asked what advice would he give the Left-wing writers, leading British conservative philosopher and writer Roger Scruton replied “acknowledge the legitimacy of disagreement”. Scruton’s description of the Left and Communist intelligentsia, and his analysis of their methods of political and intellectual impositions are applicable in the Indian context as well. It is the essential refusal of theirs to acknowledge the right to disagree—in the political and intellectual sphere—that has vitiated India’s political atmosphere since many decades.

Unable to generate any new thinking, incapable of political expansion or of self-renewal and having failed to ideologically evolve and restate themselves, the Left in India is not only stagnating but increasingly taking recourse to intellectual and political thuggery and charlatanism. Their counterparts in the West also work in close coordination and disrupt, hiss and boo anyone who has an alternate view-point or espouses a world view which is not in consonance or opposed to theirs. They refuse to seriously engage in an argument or in articulating counter-points, as Scruton observes, “People on the left don’t, on the whole, engage with their opponents. They dismiss and sneer at them, and, if they can, they will accuse them of things like racism or whatever the evil of the day might be.” It is always a concocted and conjured evil that these come up with it, so that they can continue with perpetuating their false positions.

The other obsession that the Left has is to politicise and to think that ‘everything is political’. The latest expression of this reductionist mindset is reflected in Sitaram Yechury’s observation on PM Narendra Modi’s repeated appeal to not politicise the triple talaq discussion. Modi had called for a serious and dispassionate discussion on the issue. In his meeting with leading maulanas on May 9, he appealed to them to see the issue in terms of ending discrimination against women, and asked them to initiate this reform from within their society and desist from seeing it in political terms.

The response to Modi’s appeal on the issue has been heartening and is coming in from across the country, especially from the community to which his appeal is addressed. While a positive atmosphere of debate and discussion is being generated across a cross-section, the communists, under direction from the puny leadership, are seeing politics and communal angle in it. Sans seriously engaging, they are displaying how out of tune they have become with the realities of India and with the dimensions of her collective thought.

Sir Roger ScrutonTheir receiving a microscopic and disgustingly paltry share of votes in recent Delhi civic polls has not shaken them out of their intellectual arrogance-induced stupor. Scruton explains it best, “People on the left think that everything (sic) is political. Even if you are discussing the foundations of arithmetic they will look for the hidden political agenda. Every question and every answer, when you are fully immersed in the left-wing way of thinking, is part of a political posture. Indeed, to suppose that there are purely impartial and objective questions is itself to be guilty of ‘right-wing’ deviationism. Against that way of arguing you cannot possibly win, and that, I came to realise, is its point.”

This refusal to ‘acknowledge the legitimacy of disagreement’, both politically and intellectually, is seen latest in the intellectual intolerance displayed against Professor Makarand Paranjape who is on a lecture of the West and politically seen in the manner in which veteran BJP leader and MLA O. Rajagopal in Kerala was attacked and scores of BJP and RSS workers killed by leftist cadres.

» Anirban Ganguly is the Director of the Dr Syama Prasad Mookerjee Research Foundation, New Delhi. Follow him on Twitter @anirbanganguly

BJPs Amit Shah exposes Kerala's Leftist violence

Communist Holocaust

Audrey Truschke and academic bullying – Koenraad Elst

Aurangzeb and his apologist Audrey Truschke

Koenraad ElstLike Truschke herself, I am neither Hindu nor Indian, yet I can read for myself with what explicit glee the Muslim chroniclers described temple destructions and massacres of unbelievers. – Dr Koenraad Elst

Audrey Truschke is a Professor of Religious Studies in Stanford, California, and has gained some fame with her work on the patronage of Sanskrit by the Moghuls. In order to get that far, she had to toe the ideologically mandatory line: neither in America nor in India does the Hindu-baiting establishment allow a dissident to get seriously established in the academic world. Predictably, we see her elaborating the same positions already taken by an earlier generation of academics, such as whitewashing Aurangzeb. Not that this was a hard job for her: one gets the impression that she is a true believer and really means what she says. Then again, she may have done an excellent job of creating the desired impression all while secretly knowing better.

Bullying

Her position in the article “The Right’s problem with history” (DNA, 26 Oct. 2016) is summed up as: “Unable to defend a fabricated history of India on scholarly grounds, many foot soldiers of the Hindu Right have turned to another response: bullying.” It would be normal to compare secularist historians and their Western dupes with people of the same rank, namely different-minded historians, in this case belonging to the “Hindu Right”. These are not exactly numerous, having been blocked systematically from academe by the single permitted opinion in both India and America, but they exist. Yet, they and their output are absent from her paper. From a street bully, I would expect a denunciation of street bullies, and from an academic a polemic against her own peers.

Hindu Nationalists : Banner image accompanying Truschke's article in DNA The photograph accompanying the article tells it all. If it had been about her own school of history, the picture would have shown established historians involved in this debate, such as Wendy Doniger or Sheldon Pollock. But now that the opposition is at issue, it shows a group of non-historians, not in an air-conditioned college hall but in a street demonstration exercising their freedom of expression. The reader is expected to recognize them as representatives of the “Hindu Right”, and as “bullies”.

She testifies to verbal attacks she herself has endured “from members of the Hindu Right”, and which she evaluates as “vicious personal attacks on the basis of my perceived religion, gender and race”. Correction: she could have maintained the very same religion, gender and race and yet never be attacked by those same Hindus (indeed, most Jewish female whites have never experienced such attacks), if she had not belonged to the “scholars who work on South Asia” and who have earned a reputation as Hindu-baiters. She has been attacked on the basis of what she has written, nothing else.

But it is true, and deplorable, that an uncouth but vocal class of people clothe their denunciations of an ideological position in foul personal attacks. It so happens that I know her plight very well, for I too receive my share of what some would call “hate mail” when I express skepticism of beliefs dear to Hindu traditionalists (e.g. the eternity of Sanskrit, the supernatural origins of the Vedas, the Rama Setu, or the Krishna bhakti verses in the Gita). And also when going against the dogmas of her own school, such as that Muslim rule in India was benign, or that Sanskrit has an origin of white invaders oppressing black natives. Nothing dangerous, though, and I doubt her claim of “physical attacks” on Indologists, unless she means the egg thrown at Wendy Doniger in London.

From the start, Truschke tries to capture the moral high ground by citing one of her lambasters as tweeting: “Gas this Jew.” In America, such reference to the Holocaust is absolutely not done, and Indian secularist circles adopt the same sensitivities once they see these as valid for the trend-setting West. To the Hindu mainstream, this hyper-focus on anything associated with the WW2 is not there, and they had no history with antisemitism; but still this quote would be unacceptable there, for regardless of what Jews exactly believe, Hindus tend to respect other faiths.

However, her claim might be correct (not sure there), for there are indeed some Hindu hotheads who have adopted this kind of rhetoric. In pre-internet days, they would brew their own conspiracy theories, but now the access to websites carrying elaborate Western conspiracy theories, starring the Zionist World Conspiracy, entices them into using this kind of language. Certainly deplorable, but not at all representative for the “Hindu Right”: hardly even for its bullies, not for its leaders (both V. D. Savarkar and M. S. Golwalkar described the Jews as role models for loyalty to one’s own roots) and not at all for the “Hindu Right” scholars whom she is carefully ignoring.

Academic bullying   

This “bullying” had best been compared to the “bullying” on the other side. Like, for instance, the two attempts by Leftist students to silence me, as a twice scheduled speaker, at the Madison Wisconsin South Asia Conference in 1996 and a private event preceding it, hosted by Prof Andrew Sihler. Or the successful protests against the Dharma Civilization Foundation’s offer to fund a chair at UC Irvine, when so many US chairs are comfortably being funded by the Saudis.

But on Truschke’s own side, the dividing line between bullies and academics is not so neat. Why stoop to street bullying if you have tenure? It is far more effective, then, to resort to academic bullying. Thus, in their intervention in the California Textbook Affair, where Hindu parents had sought to edit blatantly anti-Hindu passages, the explicitly partisan intervening professors even managed to get themselves recognized as arbiters in the matter. This would have been unthinkable if those bullies had not been established academics. (And this I can say even though my criticism of the Hindu parents’ positions exists in cold print.) Her focus on street bullies has the effect of misdirecting the reader’s attention, away from the more consequential phenomenon of academic bullying.

I myself have been barred from several Indologist forums by active intervention or passive complicity of the same professors who otherwise clamour “censorship!” when anything at all happens to a book they favour. Thus, they are so very sensitive that they dramatically talked of “threats to freedom of speech” when … Three Hundred Ramayanas, a book belittling a Hindu scripture, was not selected as required reading in Delhi University, though otherwise, it remained freely available. They claim to champion “freedom of speech!” when Wendy Doniger’s error-ridden book Hinduism was withdrawn from circulation, though it was never legally banned but was left available for another publisher; who did indeed come forward, so that the book is again lawfully omnipresent. But when I appealed to them to intervene for annulling my banning from the Religion in South Asia (RISA) list, which had been done in violation of its own charter, they all looked the other way.

A recent example. In 2014, I read a paper on the Rg Vedic seer Vasishtha and his relative divinization in a panel on “divinization” at the European Conference for South Asia Studies in Zürich. My paper was enthusiastically received, also by the panel’s organizers when I sent in the final version for publication. First, they accepted it, but then, I received an embarrassed e-mail from the organizers stating that they could not include my paper, without any reason given. Upon my enquiring, the half-line reply said that it did not fit their project. In all its insignificance, this still managed to be a blatant lie, and their earlier acceptance confirmed that this could not have been the reason. But some higher up had warned them that I am to be treated as excluded, just like on many other occasions.

Far more seriously, both in America and in India, scholars suspected of pro-Hindu sympathies are blocked in their access to academe, and their work gets studiously ignored. For India, a tip of the blanket over this hushed-up phenomenon was lifted by Dr A. Devahuti: Bias in Indian Historiography (1980). It is seriously in need of an update, but I am given to understand that one is forthcoming. For America, a start was made by Rajiv Malhotra with his books Invading the Sacred (2007) and Academic Hinduphobia (2016).

Hinduphobia

Coming to contents, Truschke accuses “Hindu Right-wingers” of attacks on “academics”. I would have expected them to attack “anti-Hindu Left-wingers”, and indeed I learn that this is exactly how they see it—and how they see her. If she doesn’t like being characterized this way, she is herewith invited to stop calling her adversaries similar names. The binary Left/Right is at least problematic here, yet for a quarter century I have seen this scheme used to explain matters. Except that the Left doesn’t call itself Left: it treats itself as the natural centre, and anything to its right is deemed politically coloured: “Right” or very easily “extreme Right”.

Anyway, she calls “alleged Hinduphobia” nothing more than “a strawman stand-in for any idea that undercuts Hindutva ideology”. The term was made popular by Rajiv Malhotra, whom I have never known to swear by “Hindutva”, a specific term literally translated as “Hindu-ness” but now effectively meaning “the RSS tradition of Hindu nationalism”. At any rate, one does not have to follow Hindutva, or even be a Hindu or an Indian, to observe that American India-watchers utter a strong anti-Hindu prejudice in their publications. Not to look too far, I can find an example in myself: I have written a number of publications criticizing both Hindutva as an ideology and the Hindutva organizations, yet I can off-hand enumerate dozens of illustrations of Hindu-baiting by supposed India experts in the West as well as by their Indian counterparts.

At most, one can criticize the term “Hinduphobia” for being etymologically less than exact. Words in -phobia normally indicate an irrational fear, and fear is not the attitude in which Hinduism is approached. The term was coined on the model of Islamophobia, a weaponized word meant to provoke hatred, yet now a thoroughly accepted and integrated term among progressive academics. A phobia is normally a psychiatric term and its use to denote political adversaries is of a kind with the Soviet custom of locking up dissidents in mental hospitals. And indeed, people shielding Islam from proper enquiry do treat their opponents as mentally warped marginals. But the core of truth in the reprehensible term “Islamophobia” is at least that it points to “fear of Islam”, a religion which its critics do indeed diagnose as fearsome. Hinduism, by contrast, has been criticized as cruel, evil, superstitious, ridiculous, but not as a threat. It is only Hindus who flatter themselves that the “Abrahamics” want to destroy Hinduism because they fear it as being superior and more attractive.

The use of the term Hinduphobia is predicated upon the already existing acceptance and use of the term Islamophobia. If the UN, the governments of the US and EU, etc., and the pan-Islamic pressure group OIC, were to give up this ugly and vicious term, then the Hinduphobia term so disliked by Truschke would lapse with it and get replaced again by the older and more accurate term Hindu-baiting. But until then, it throws the Islamophile and Hindu-baiting scholars of Truschke’s persuasion back on the bare fact that they themselves have and display the kind of prejudice against Hinduism of which they accuse the Islam critics.

History

According to Truschke, “a toxic combination of two realities fuel the Hindu Right’s onslaught against scholars of South Asia: Hindu nationalist ideology rests heavily on a specific vision of Indian history, and that version of history is transparently false.”

Now it gets interesting, with two competing views of Indian history, one true and one false: “Hindu nationalists claim that India’s past featured the glorious flourishing of a narrowly defined Hinduism that was savagely interrupted by anybody non-Hindu, especially Muslims. However, the real story of Indian history is much more complicated and interesting.”

A “narrowly defined Hinduism” is only projected into the Hindu past by semi-literate non-historians who do indeed man the middle ranks of the uniformed RSS ranks. No serious Hindu historian, not the lamented Jadunath Sarkar, R. C. Majumdar, Harsh Narain or K. S. Lal, nor contempory scholars like Bharat Gupt or Meenakshi Jain, would be foolish enough to simply deny the “diversity and syncretism” that Truschke sees in India’s past. But here again, we see how Truschke has chosen not to address the scholars of a competing persuasion, but the village bumpkins.

In one sense, however, even the most sophisticated historians will affirm that India’s past was indeed “glorious”. And it was not at all “complicated”: India was simply independent. Yes, ancient India had its problems too, it had local wars, it was not paradise on earth, but in one decisive respect, Indians under Muslim or British occupation correctly remembered it as “glorious”: it ruled itself. When the British told Mahatma Gandhi that his hoped-for independence would only throw India back into its headaches of casteism, communalism and the rest, he answered that India would, of course, have its problems, “but they will be our own”. Compared to being under foreign tutelage, such self-rule is nothing less than glorious.

This brings us to Truschke’s own field of research: “Especially problematic for Hindu nationalists is current scholarship on the Indo-Islamic rule, a fertile period for cross-cultural contacts and interreligious exchanges. This vibrant past is rightly a source of pride and inspiration for many Indians, but the Hindu Right sees only an inconvenient challenge to their monolithic narrative of Hindu civilisation under Islamic siege.”

Note how two issues are artfully mixed up here: the questionable monolithic view of Hinduism and the very correct view of a Hindu civilization besieged and raped by Islam. It is true that non-historian “Hindu nationalists” are rather inaccurate in their “monolithic narrative of Hindu civilisation”; but it is not true that the period of “Indo-Islamic rule” is a “source of pride and inspiration”, nor that it is contested only by “Hindu nationalists”. Her notion of “current scholarship” is of course limited to her own school of thought, heavily over-represented in academe, partly due to its aggressive policy of exclusion vis-à-vis others.

There are admittedly those who identify with foreign colonizers: many Indian Muslims identify with Mohammed bin Qasim and with the Moghuls (whom Pakistan considers as the real founders of their Indo-Islamic state), and many Nehruvian secularists share and continue the British opinions about India and Hinduism. But those who identify with India, even if they admit some good aspects of these colonizations, do not take any pride at all in having been subjugated. Yes, there were instances of collaboration with the colonizers, such as the hundreds of thousands of Indians whose sweat made the “British” railway network possible, or the Rajputs whose daughters filled the Moghul harems in exchange for their fathers’ careers in the Moghul army. But those instances are at most understandable, a lesser evil in difficult circumstances, but not a source of “pride and inspiration”.

A few episodes of Muslim occupation were indeed “vibrant”, viz. after Akbar’s realistic appreciations of the existing power equations persuaded him to rule with rather than against his Hindu subjects. Then, as everybody already knew, Hindus did indeed give their cultural best, rebuilding the temples which the Sultanate had demolished (and which would again be demolished by Aurangzeb)—a tribute to the vitality of Hindu civilization even under adverse circumstances. And some Muslims did indeed engage in “interreligious exchanges”, such as Dara Shikoh translating the Upanishads into Persian; later, he was beheaded for apostasy.

But even then, academics had better use their critical sense when interpreting these episodes, rather than piously taking them at face value. In the Zürich conference already mentioned, I heard an “academic” describe how contemporary Hindi writers praised Aurangzeb, the dispenser of their destinies. Well, many eulogies of Stalin can also be cited, including by comrades fallen from grace and praising Stalin even during their acceptance speeches of the death penalty; but it would be a very bad historian, even if sporting academic titles, who flatly deduces therefrom that Stalin was a benign ruler. Govind Singh’s “Victory Letter” to Emperor Aurangzeb was, in all seriousness, included among the sources of praise, leaving unmentioned that Aurangzeb had murdered Govind’s father and four sons. Every village bumpkin can deduce that Govind hated Aurangezb more than any other person in the world, and that he was only being diplomatic in his writing because of the power equation. Academics laugh at kooks who believe in aliens, but it took an academic, no less, to discover an alien who actually admired the murderer of his father and sons.

According to Truschke’s admission, a lot of Hindus are “happy to underscore the violence and bloodshed unleashed by many Indo-Islamic rulers”, but she wrongly identifies them as “Hindu Right”. It doesn’t require a specific ideological commitment nor even any religious identity to observe well-documented historical facts. Mostly documented by the Muslim perpetrators themselves, that is. Thus, like Truschke herself, I am neither Hindu nor Indian, yet I can read for myself with what explicit glee the Muslim chroniclers described temple destructions and massacres of unbelievers.

The mistake of plagiarism

“In contrast to the detailed work of academics, the Hindu nationalist vision of India’s past stands on precarious to non-existent historical evidence. As a result, the Hindu Right cannot engage with Indologists on scholarly grounds. Indeed, the few Hindutva ideologues who have attempted to produce scholarship are typically tripped up by rookie mistakes—such as misusing evidence, plagiarism, and overly broad arguments—and so find themselves ignored by the academic community.”

The inclusion of “plagiarism” among her list of “rookie mistakes” gives away that she is fulminating specifically against the work of Rajiv Malhotra, whom she is careful not to mention by name. For his book Indra’s Net, he was famously accused of plagiarism (by a mission mentor), for he quotes the American scholar Andrew Nicholson’s book Unifying Hinduism, in which he concurs with the same position that Hinduism had elaborated its common doctrinal backbone long before the Orientalists “invented Hinduism”. In fact, he only used Nicholson as a source to prove that Westerners too could acquire this insight, there was nothing “Hindu nationalist” about it. And he amply quoted him in so many words, though a few times, for the flow of the narrative, he merely rephrased the theses of this much-quoted author. By that standard, most papers contain plagiarism; but what passes unnoticed elsewhere becomes a scandal when done by a self-identifying Hindu.

Yet, numerous Indologists started a holier-than-thou tirade against the “plagiarism”, a comical drama to watch. Malhotra then walked the extra mile writing Nicholson out of his narrative and quoting original sources instead (thereby incidentally showing the amount of plagiarism that Nicholson himself had committed, though no Indologist ever remarked on that). But this inconvenient development was given the silent treatment, and Truschke still presupposes that there ever was a substantive “plagiarism” case against Malhotra, and by extension against the whole “Hindu Right”.

Malhotra has indeed been “ignored by the academic community”—until he found the way to make his critique non-ignorable. That indeed shows a lot of skill in dealing with the way of the world, for until then, Hindus had only painstakingly proven themselves right and the “academics” wrong, but had had no impact at all. By contrast, Malhotra, by personalizing his argument into specific dissections of the work of leading scholars such as Wendy Doniger, Sheldon Pollock or Anantanand Rambachan, has earned a session at the annual conference of the trend-setting American Academy of Religion. On Indological discussion forums, his input is frequently mentioned, though the academics mostly keep up their airs of pooh-poohing that interloper, in a bid to justify their ignoring his actual critique of their own work.

By the way, notice my term: a “self-identifying Hindu”. As the case of Malhotra has amply exemplified, it suffices to stand up as a Hindu, or to own up Hinduism, in order to be dubbed “Hindu Rightist”, “Hindutva ideologue”, as well as “fanatic”. “rookie” and all the fair names Hindus have been called by Prof Truschke’s august school of thought. To them, the acceptable Hindu, or what Malhotra calls a “sepoy”, is one who never identifies as a Hindu, but rather as “Indian” (or better, “Bengali”, “Malayali” etc.), “low-caste”, and ideologically “secularist”. The exception is when countering criticism from self-identified Hindus, for then, he is expected to say: “But me too, I am a Hindu!” That way, he can fulfil his main task: as long as there are Hindus, he must deny them the right to speak on behalf of Hinduism and to give it a presence at the conversation between worldviews.

History debates

Most Hindu scholars had or have not found the way to impose their viewpoint on the sphere of discourse yet. In the case of objective scholars among non-Hindus, this would not have mattered. It is, after all, their own job to trace any material relevant to their field of research, including obscure works by other scholars, even adversaries. But in this case, there are some cornerstones of the Indological worldview which tolerate no criticism nor alternatives, so these are to be carefully ignored.

Thus, Shrikant Talageri’s case against the Aryan Invasion Theory, the bedrock of the “academic” view of ancient Hindu history, is painstaking, detailed, voluminous, factual and well-formulated, yet Truschke’s own entire tribe of “academics” simply goes on ignoring his case without bothering to refute it. (Well, there are two articles talking down to him, but we mean actual refutations, not mere denials.) If academics were to live up to the reputation they have among laymen, they would have set aside their current business to deal with this fundamental challenge to their worldview.

Or take A Secular Agenda by Arun Shourie, PhD from Syracure NY and stunningly successful Disinvestment Minister in the A. B. Vajpayee Government, when India scored its highest economic growth figures. It was a very important book, and it left no stone standing of the common assumption among so-called experts that India (with its religion-based civil codes and its discriminatory laws against Hinduism) is a secular state, i.e. a state in which all citizens are equal before the law, regardless of their religion. Though the book deconstructs the bedrock on which the “experts” have built their view of modern India, they have never formulated a refutation. Instead, they just keep on repeating their own deluded assumption, as in: “The BJP threatens India’s structure as a secular state.” (Actually, the BJP does not, and India is not.) They can do so because they are secure in the knowledge that, among the audiences that matter, their camp controls the sphere of discourse. Concerning the interface between religion and modern politics, the established “academic” view is not just defective, it is an outrageous failure.

Or consider historian Prof K. S. Lal’s works on caste and religion, refuting with primary data the seeming truism, launched by the Communist Party ideologue M. N. Roy and now omnipresent in the textbooks, that the lowest castes converted en masse to Islam because of its claimed message of equality. Islam mainly won over the urban middle castes (and not because of equality, a value rejected as ingratitude towards the Dispenser of destinies in the Quran, but because of the privileges vis-à-vis non-Muslims), not the Untouchables. Again, the silent treatment has been the only response the “experts” could muster.

The Ayodhya affair

It is uncommon for Audrey Truschke and the opposite school to have any kind of direct debate at all. In the US this was, until Rajiv Malhotra, unthinkable for lack of any pro-Hindu school willing and able to stand up to the overwhelming anti-Hindu bias among those Indologists willing to wade into any controversial subject. But in India, there have been a few such confrontations. And on those occasions, the “academics” did not cover themselves with glory.

One consequential instance in India was the Ayodhya scholars’ debate in the winter of 1990-1991, organized by the Janata (Left-populist) government headed by Chandra Shekhar. This was won hands down by the scholars affirming the existence of a Hindu temple underneath the Babri Masjid, first against a delegation of Muslim leaders unfamiliar with historical methodology, selected by the Babri Masjid Action Committee, then against a group of Marxist academics called in by that same Committee for saving the day. The latter’s position was but an elaboration of the official orthodoxy created by a group of academics from JNU when they issued a statement, The Political Abuse of History (1989), denying the existence of temple remains underneath the Babri Masjid. It had been taken over as gospel truth by most of the academic and journalistic India-watchers in the West, including Truschke’s mentors. They kept the lid on the debate’s outcome.

More detail about the controversy can be found in my paper The Three Ayodhya Debates (2011). But since I do not hold an academic chair, she might not take me seriously, so let that pass. Instead, I may refer her to the excellent book Rama’s Ayodhya (2013) by Prof Meenakshi Jain of DU. No Indian or Western academic has refuted it or even formally taken cognizance of it. After court-ordered excavations in 2003 had definitively confirmed the existence of the temple, acknowledged in the court verdict of 2010, they have all turned conspicuously silent on Ayodhya.

Indeed, what insiders knew all along, has now become official: the stance of the “academics”, both Indian and Western, has been an outrageous failure. It relied entirely on the authority of a few “experts” already known for their anti-Hindu positions. Their “expertise” fell through completely once they were cross-examined on the witness stand, as amply documented by  Prof Jain.

That those “experts” didn’t manage to uphold their case against the temple was a surprise only to their dupes, including the American India-watchers. At least, I assume these were dupes and had genuinely swallowed the no-temple claim (“concocted by the wily Hindu fundamentalists”). The alternative is that they were deliberate accomplices in the Ayodhya deception, an artificial controversy that killed thousands and brought down several governments. I would prefer not to think such things about scholars like Audrey Truschke and her mentors.

A remarkable aspect of the experts’ fall from grace was the smugness with which they took the witness stand. They had not deemed it necessary to brush up their knowledge of Ayodhya, or to give their ill-founded statements of opinion a more solid basis at least after the fact. They had for so long publicly pretended, as Truschke now does, that the Hindu side merely consisted of a bunch of deplorables, that they didn’t see the need to gear up for the confrontation.

Iconoclasm

The Ayodhya controversy was part of a larger issue, viz. Islamic iconoclasm, which victimized many thousands of places of worship in India and abroad, starting with Arabia. Or at least, that is how historians like Sita Ram Goel and Profs Harsh Narain, K. S. Lal, Saradindu Mukherji saw it: turn this one controversy into an occasion for educating the public about the ideological causes of the iconoclasm that hit Hindu society so hard and so consistently for over a millennium. But the RSS-BJP preferred to put the entire focus on their one toy in Ayodhya, and obscure or even deny the Islamic motive behind it. (The ideological impotence and non-interest on their part provides yet another contrast with the academics’ imaginary construction of a wily, resourceful and highly motivated Hindu movement.)

As part of his effort, Goel published a two-volume book giving a list of two thousand purposely demolished temples, mostly replaced by mosques. The part on the theology of iconoclasm proved irrefutable, and has never even been gainsaid on any of its specifics. The list of two thousand temples equally stands entirely unshaken, as so many challenges to the reigning school that tries to downplay the tradition of iconoclasm pioneered by the Prophet. Ever since, the dominant policy has been to disregard Goel’s work and carry on whitewashing the record of Islam regardless.

Since stray new proofs of Muslim temple destruction keep popping up, that school has developed an alternative discursive strategy to prevent such cases from suggesting their own logical conclusion. It now preaches that a few temple destructions have indeed taken place, but channels this admission towards a counterintuitive explanation: that Hinduism is to be blamed for these, not Islam. The core of truth is that a handful of cases have been documented of ancient Hindu kings abducting prestigious idols from their adversaries’ main temples, just as happened in Mesopotamia and other Pagan cultures. These are then presented as the source of inspiration for Aurangzeb’s wholesale destruction (documented in his own court chronicles) of thousands of temples and many more idols.

Not that any of the many Muslim iconoclasts ever testified that such was his inspiration. Their motivation, whenever explicitly stated, and whether inside or outside of India, is invariably purely Islamic. Since the negationist school is unable to document its thesis, let me show them by example how to do it.

Kashinath Pandit’s book A Muslim Missionary in Mediaeval Kashmir (Delhi 2009) contains a translation of the Tohfatu’l Ahbab, the biography of the 15th-century Islamic missionary Shamsu’d-Din Araki by his younger contemporary Muhammad Ali Kashmiri. After describing the many temple demolitions Araki wrought or triggered in thinly populated Kashmir (many more than the “eighty” which the secularists are willing to concede on Richard Eaton’s authority for all of India during the whole Muslim period), the biographer gives Araki’s motivation in practising all this iconoclasm.

Does he say: Araki then recalled the story how a Hindu king ran off with an idol and thereby felt an urge to do something entirely different: destroy all the idols and their idol-houses with it? No, he recounts the standard Islamic narrative of the Kaaba: it was built by Adam and rebuilt by Abraham for monotheistic worship (thus yielding a far more authoritative precedent than idol theft by an infidel king), until unbelievers made it “a place for the idols and a house for the statues. Some Quraish chieftains (…) turned this House of God into the abode of devilish and satanic people. For innumerable years, this house of divine light and bliss became the worshiping place for sorcerers and depraved people and the centre of worshippers of idols (made of stones).”

Fortunately, this injustice didn’t last, neither in Mecca nor in Kashmir: “When the last of the prophets (Muhammad) saw this situation, he lifted Imam ‘Ali Murtaza on his shoulders so that defiled and impure idols and images were struck down in the House of God. (…) In the same manner, Kashmir was a den of wicked people, the source of infidelity and a mine of corruption and aberration.” (p.258)

And then the enumeration of Hindu sacred places levelled and mosques built in their stead resumes. An extra detail of interest for all those who idealize Sufis is that the text lists many occasions when “Sufis” and “Derwishes” participated in massacres and temple demolitions.

At any rate, that is what a Muslim testimony of the motive for temple destructions looks like. At least in the real world, not in the make-believe world of our “academics”. I had already challenged Richard Eaton (the originator of this thesis, a self-described Marxist) and his followers to come up with such evidence in 1999, but nothing has ever materialized. Come on, Prof Truschke, you can make an excellent career move by producing this proof.

To sum up: on the one hand, we have Islamic icononoclasts and their contemporary supporters saying in so many words that Islam made them do it. Moderns who highlight this evidence are, in Truschke’s estimation, “bullies”. On the other, we have no evidence at all for the claim that the Islamic iconoclasts, intent on destroying Hinduism itself through its icons, took inspiration from Hindu icon-stealers, who installed the icon in their own temple for continued worship (as if abduction, wanting to have something close to you, were the same thing as murder, i.e. wanting something to disappear from this world). This claim is nothing more than special pleading. Yet, people who propagate it are, in Trusche’s description, “academics”.

Conclusion

The bourgeoisie sets great store by status. Scholars go by a different criterion: knowledge. They know, through learning or personal experience, that for some of the great insights and discoveries we are indebted to outsiders and amateurs; and that quite a few of their colleagues have big titles and positions not corresponding to their actual knowledge. They also know that holding (or at least uttering) the required opinions can make or break an academic career: either formally, as when a non-Anglican could not get admission to Oxford University, or informally, as under the reign of progressivist conformism today.

To think highly of the academic world presupposes a link between scientific achievement and academic rank, and this largely makes sense in the exact sciences. In the humanities, especially in the social “science” and literature departments, this link is also deduced, but only as a parasitical extension of the conventions in the exact sciences. Much of what passes for scholarship these days is only ideology wrapped into jargon. Some sophomores take it seriously: having just gained entry into the academic world, they idealize it and are proud of their belonging to a higher world distinct from lay society. And most laymen believe it: over-awed by status, they assume that academic status presupposes both knowledge and objectivity, the basis of academic authority.

There exists a test for objective knowledge: a good theory predicts. Physicists who know the relevant parameters of an object in motion, can predict its location at future times. Well, how about the predictions by the academic India-watchers? In the mid-1990s, when the BJP’s imminent coming to power was a much-discussed probability, top academics predicted that a BJP government would turn India into a Vedic dictatorship, whatever that may be. They were put in the wrong even swifter than expected: in 1996, BJP leader A. B. Vajpayee was prime minister for 13 days, then lost the vote of confidence, and instead of seizing power for good, he meekly stepped down. Academics predicted the victimization of Dalits and women, gas chambers, “all the Indian Muslims thrown into the Indian Ocean”, and what not. Well, the BJP has been in power from 1998 till 2004, and since 2014: where are those gas chambers?

Scholars of modern India, as well as historians of fields relevant for contemporary political debates, have a lot to be modest about. They may have academic positions, but their record is not such that they are in a position to talk down to outsiders, the way Audrey Truschke now does. – Pragyata, 30 November 2016

» Dr Koenraad Elst is an author and Indologist based in Belgium.

Kashi Vishwanath Temple replaced by Aurangzeb's Gyanvapi Mosque, Varanasi (James Prinsep 1834)

Justin Trudeau, don’t patronise terror – M.D. Nalapat

Justin Trudeau joins the Khalistanis (2017)

Prof M.D. NalapatThe speeches of the … participants in the “Free Khalistan” gathering that had [Prime Minister Justin Trudeau] as the star participant made clear that their intention was to “struggle for the achievement of Khalistan”. – Prof M. D. Nalapat

The post-colonial colonial practice of the Indian bureaucracy is to fawn on the white foreigner while being derisive towards the brown (and in the case of South Indians, if we are to believe Tarun Vijay, black) native. Hence it is almost a given fact that apart from private and muted expressions of disquiet, there will not be any action by the MEA concerning Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of Canada. This despite the man endorsing (through his enthusiastic participation in a Toronto event) the separation of Punjab from the rest of India, which is the sole and the oft-stated objective of the Khalistan movement. The speeches of the other participants in the “Free Khalistan” gathering that had him as the star participant made clear that their intention was to “struggle for the achievement of Khalistan”. And as for the methods favoured during such a struggle, these were clear from the admiration showered on Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale, whose countenance gazed on the participants through a profusion of posters featuring the individual who was a creature of certain Congress Party functionaries in the Punjab before shifting his loyalties to GHQ Rawalpindi. The favoured method of Bhindranwale was torture followed by murder. Looking at the cash that was sent from Canada—and indeed from the UK and the US as well—to the “Khalistan” network in India during the 1980s, it was obvious that there were more than a few Canadian nationals who were contributing towards another division of India. The NDA-II government headed by Prime Minister Narendra Modi has on several occasions demonstrated its fealty to the concepts and responses of Mahatma Gandhi, for example by aligning itself with the PDP in Jammu and Kashmir. To those not attuned to a saintly way of life, it was certain that such a grotesque alliance would lead precisely to the meltdown that we are witnessing in Kashmir these days. However, just as happened with the Mahatma on countless occasions, hope was allowed to prevail over experience and an alliance tailor made for instability was crafted. Another Gandhian act of NDA-II was to forgive those in Canada, the US and the UK who during the 1980s and 1990s funded and otherwise assisted the operations of the Dal Khalsa in India. Such elements, who were committed to the breakup of India, were once again given visas to enter the country.

Not surprisingly, many such visitors have used the newly-opened door to try and bring the Khalistan movement back to life in the Punjab. Just in case Justin Trudeau is not aware of the murder and mayhem perpetrated by the Dal Khalsa in Punjab for over a decade (although the tempo slackened after the death of Zia-ul-Haq in 1988), hopefully the High Commission will educate him about this blood-filled chapter in our country’s history. Indeed, some from the vibrant Indo-Canadian community need to come out with advertisements detailing the deeds of Bhindranwale and the murders of innocents by the “Khalistani” groups.

The Prime Minister of what passes for a friendly country and is a member of the Commonwealth has tacitly endorsed a movement whose preferred instrument was terror. If this is not something which should be formally protested in the strongest of terms, it is difficult to determine what is. Certainly the Commonwealth Secretariat needs to be queried as to whether it is proper for the Head of State of a member country to participate in an event whose objective is the dismemberment of another through the use of terror and violence.

Fortunately, the chance of a recurrence of the Khalistan movement in the Punjab is zero, as memories of the mayhem of the past are still strong. The Sikh community is among the noblest in India, and has repeatedly shown their patriotism, especially in the field of battle. Indeed, Punjabis overall quickly got back on their feet after being, in a sense, flung on their backs during the murderous chaos of partition, and for this, they deserve both admiration and emulation.

However, just as it was a moral travesty on Trudeau’s part to implicitly back a return of Bhindranwale-style tactics in the Punjab, it must not be forgotten that what took place in 1984 just after the assassination of Indira Gandhi was unforgivable. As is the fact that no one of any significance has thus far been seriously brought to account after the mass murders that took place in Delhi during those initial days in November 1984. It is expected of the UPA that they would deny that anything of significance took place during those few days. It should not be the case with the NDA, which needs to resist the temptation to either cover up (through not making documents public) or justify errors made in the past, including during NDA I.

Problem areas should be acknowledged rather than ignored, as should actions such as being present at events celebrating the life and ways of a terrorist.

To not respond diplomatically in adequate measure to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s tacit backing of a fresh partition of India would only entrench the narrative that Lutyens Delhi is all bark and no bite, not even of the soft variety. Indeed, it is such a conviction about India, that there is no substantive blowback from trampling on this country’s core interests, that has ensured recent diplomatic disasters as Pakistan, the US, UK, Australia, Norway, Ireland, Czech Republic, Germany, Kyrgystan, Kazakhstan, Lichtenstein, Haiti, Kenya, Vatican, South Korea and others joining hands to fling accusation after accusation at this country in the Geneva meeting of the UN Human Rights Council.

Hopefully, in the case of each of these powers, there will be more than the usual “silent protests” at such mischaracterisations of India. Under Nehru in the 1950s, India talked and talked and talked and yet found itself isolated at its moment of crisis in 1962. The people expect more than just words from Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

They expect action. – Sunday Guardian Live, 6 May 2017

» Prof M. D. Nalapat is Vice-Chair, Manipal Advanced Research Group, UNESCO Peace Chair & Professor of Geopolitics, Manipal University, Karnataka State, India. Email: mgnalapat@gmail.com

Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale display in Toronto (2017)

Video: Did the Art of Living cultural event destroy the Yamuna floodplain? – Rajiv Malhotra

Why does a particular class of people dislike Modi and Yogi? – Amrit Hallan

Amrit HallanI started taking note of Narendra Modi when he was being heavily trolled by those who identified themselves as left-liberal, and most of them pretended to be non-political. – Amrit Hallan

Ever since I started taking active interest in politics, one thing that has continuously intrigued me is what sort of intelligence people use to arrive at a particular political and ideological thinking?

What makes them decide which politician to support and whom to oppose?

What moral and ideological compromises are they ready to make to support and promote their preferred politicians?

Of course, as the title of the article suggests, when I’m writing this, my focus is going to be on Narendra Modi and Yogi Adityanath, because otherwise a whole research paper can be written.

I chose Modi and Yogi as they face the most strident opposition from a particular class of people, and here I’m not talking about political parties because they are supposed to take a contradictory stand. I’m talking about supposedly “non-political” or “neutral” people. I remember I started taking note of Narendra Modi when he was being heavily trolled by those who identified themselves as left-liberal, and most of them pretended to be non-political.

I’m writing about Modi and Yogi because they are targeted the most by not just our own, often self-righteous, news media and the coterie of intellectuals and activists, but also by the foreign press (although the foreign press has its own reasons).

Their every move is observed, given a different version, and seeded and propagated through television, print media or the Internet, to portray them as bigoted, communal villains.

Positive news is totally ignored or it is turned into something negative.

Even if you don’t support both of them, just for the sake of objectivity, just observe the way the news media reports about Modi and Yogi and then compare this to the way the same news media reports about, say, Arvind Kejriwal, Mulayam Singh Yadav, Lalu Yadav, Mamata Bannerjee, or even Sasikala in the South. If you cannot spot the difference then you shouldn’t be reading further, would be my advice.

The stunt that Sasikala pulled after Jayalalitha’s death wasn’t just a mockery of our political system, it was also a criminal activity, but no, our news media decided to be totally “objective” and report the happenings as they were. They simply say that her family is called the “Mannargudi mafia” as if they are not talking about a mafia but an RWA.

There was no outrage. The democracy didn’t come under threat. Minorites didn’t feel vulnerable. The Constitution wasn’t insulted. The foreign media didn’t put Indian on their op-ed map.

The same sense of objectivity suddenly vanishes when it comes to something that the BJP does. Take for example the anti-Romeo squads started by the new BJP government in Uttar Pradesh. The hatred for whatever the BJP does is so steep that a scheme launched to protect the women of the state is projected as an attack on personal freedom. Just imagine, in which country would you term the targeting of eve teasers, roadside goons, and even prospective rapists, as an attack on personal freedom?

The other day Captain Amrinder Singh was saying that he will never have anti-Romeo squads in Punjab because he believes in personal freedom. Fair enough; he is a politician and one of his jobs is to show himself different from his political opponents. But then a journalist, who should be objective and unbiased, giddily tweeted the statement as if the anti-Romeo squads were exclusively launched to mount attacks on personal freedom, not even making an effort to present an alternative view that the squads are for reining in the unsavoury elements in the society. Very few in the media explain the fact that these squads are not non-state groups of voluntary people; they are police persons.

The closure of illegal slaughterhouses was similarly reported as an attack on the eating habits of the minorities and all those who eat meat. In any other country, people would be happy that illegal establishments are shut down because they don’t follow the hygienic guidelines prescribed by the rule books, but no, not in our country. All hell broke lose. Even the so-called legal restaurants couldn’t procure meat for the legendary kebabs and people started collapsing due to malnutrition and hunger!

As this article points out, compare the liberal outrage and media coverage shutting down of illegal slaughterhouses in Uttar Pradesh generated with the same about shutting down of legal liquor business in Bihar.

Why is it so? Why is the BJP in general and these two individuals in particular, are so disliked?

BJP is not the party of the “ecosystem”

The intellectual class is mostly Left dominated. In the late sixties and the early seventies, Indira Gandhi made a deal with the Left and sold her soul to secure her political position. All major educational institutions and news organizations came to be under Left-dominated intellectuals. It became a mutually-supporting system: the Left would provide political support and look the other way when her government crossed the line, and the Congress would let it have a free run at educational, literary and media institutions.

The BJP is anti-Left, or at least that’s the general perception. So the Left-leaning individuals and organizations naturally want to keep the BJP away from power centers, and for that they are even ready to partner with anti-national forces.

The Leftist ecosystem further draws material support from all political dispensations whose sole purpose is to keep the country in a constant state of turmoil by pitting one caste against other, one linguist group against other, one class against other, and so on. The BJP strives to bring all these communities together under the umbrella of nationalism, which disturbs the conventional vote-banks.

Primarily this is the reason why the Leftist intelligentsia (that consists of sundry artists, self-declared intellectuals, variety of NGO workers, activists, sundry writers, socialist economists and of course, journalists) abhors Modi and Yogi—their rise means the decline of the Left-favouring ecosystem.

Narendra Modi is someone who strengthens BJP

I can’t say anything for the BJP, because barring a few people, the party isn’t much different from other parties, with the only difference being that it pretends to represent the interests of the majority Hindu community more vocally.

Narendra Modi completely turned around the BJP, a party that was in complete doldrums after losses in 2004 and 2009 general elections. They were almost happy playing the second fiddle to the Congress after string of defeats.

Take Narendra Modi out of the picture and the party would have either receded further or would have still been in the opposition benches, and quite smug at that. The BJP was an old and rusted Ambassador car that Narendra Modi turned into a Porsche with hard work, statesmanship and political acumen.

So, whatever the position of the BJP right now is, it is all because of Narendra Modi. And this is one of the crucial reason Modi is disliked. Now Yogi Adityanath appears to be doing the same to the party in the so-called cow belt.

Modi and Yogi are workaholics

This can be upsetting for people who are not used to working very hard and for whom things have come easily through connections, serendipity and “jod-tod”.

They both seem to have an infinite supply of energy. Just imagine, ever since Narendra Modi has become the PM he has not taken a single leave. Many cannot relate to this obsession with work.

In fact, people (his supporters and admirers) have started worrying that if he doesn’t take rest it may take a big toll on his health and consequently, he won’t be able to accomplish all that he wants to accomplish.

Yogi Adityanath, after becoming the CM, took 50 major decisions in the first 150 hours. From the first day onwards he has sent an unequivocal message to the bureaucracy, the education system and the police, that he means business when he talks about improving the situation in the state. Many of the major pre-poll promises that the BJP made have already been put into motion.

Modi and Yogi work like sadhaks (who think their work is a holy mission)

So much decisiveness and hard work unnerves people who are not used to our systems working efficiently. Somehow, they have internalized the concept that we’re not supposed to have efficient systems; such systems are only for developed countries, the first world nations. The Indian masses are supposed to live in wretchedness.

There is this inferiority complex that makes them believe that the people of India do not deserve good governments and efficient political leaders.

Additionally, when you don’t like working hard, even indirectly, you don’t want to be compared with people who work hard.

Even if somehow they can come to terms with the fact that India could have such leaders, they wish that such leaders would have emerged from their own ideological and political pool rather than from a political party they despise. It would be a stuff of dreams for them if a Rahul Gandhi or an Akhilesh Yadav or even a Kejriwal could have even 10% of the motivation that Modi and Yogi have.

How come a saffron-clad monk is way too smarter than their IIT-educated Magsaysay Award-winning crusader who is featured in the list of the top 100 influencers in the world, they must think? How come the “social engineering” pioneers fail to improve the lot of people for decades and Modi and Yogi start making a positive impact from the word go?

Modi and Yogi have a vision

Most of the politicians in our country don’t have a vision, neither for their parties nor for the country. Their only vision is to get elected and form the government so that they can carry out various scams and enjoy immense power; their vision does not extend beyond that.

This is a big reason that they are constantly running like headless chickens. They have been making the same old promises for the past 50 years. The Congress has been trying to “hatao gareebi” and uplift the “gareeb kisaan” for the past 60 years and if you leave it to the party, it will go on “hatao-ing gareebi” for the next 200 years, making the country poorer.

Mayawati has been trying to uplift the Dalits for years. Mulayam Singh Yadav has been trying to improve the lot of Muslims and Yadavs, election after election. Mamata Banerjee cannot see beyond blatant Muslim appeasement. Lalu thinks that its his rustic crassness and unapologetic corruption that gets him the votes. Nitish is too opportunistic for his own good. AAP rides on the wave of sheer stupidity. Except for Chandrababu Naidu, politicians in South score no better.

Within 30 days, Yogi Adityanath has set deadlines for making the roads pothole free. Schools have been instructed to furnish fee-structure by a deadline to ascertain if complaints about over-charging is true or not. To tackle the menace of mass cheating in exams, action has been promised within 3 hours after registration of complaint. Yogi government has declared that in the next 5 years there will be 6 new AIIMS and 25 new medical college in the state.

Modi and Yogi don’t just say this should be done or that should be done. They set definitive goals with well-defined deadlines.

The haters are frustrated by the fact that the leaders of their choice don’t manifest such traits. They can’t accept the fact that a “chaiwala” and a saffron-clad monk are far smarter and hard-working than their chosen ones who converse in accented English while sipping the costliest champagne and whiskey.

Modi and Yogi are proud Hindus and flaunt their Hindu beliefs unapologetically

This can be one of the biggest reasons why people dislike Modi and Yogi. The entire leftist cabal has thrived on demeaning Hindu rituals, Hindu culture and Hindu history.

The Leftist intellectuals and people who are influenced by them or who want to carry forward the agenda, have ensured that the concept of Hinduism becomes a strange mishmash of misconceptions in our country. People are not proud of their religion. Even if they are proud, they want to view Hinduism from a Western perception rather than from an indigenous, Dharmic perception. Let alone being assertive or being protective towards their religion, they don’t mind if other religions overtake Hinduism.

Modi and Yogi on the other hand practice their religious beliefs unapologetically. Modi’s insistence during his first American visit that he won’t interrupt his upvaas (fast) attracted vicious scorn from the so-called liberal and leftist intelligentsia simply because these people are not used to mainstream politicians practicing Hindu ways of life publicly, especially when visiting Western countries.

They don’t want the Western world to look at Hinduism from a strict adherent’s point of view. They want the Western world to look at Hinduism from their own myopic and biased view. They want the Western world to look at India from their point of view and if someone else, unapologetically promotes Hindu beliefs, they scoff and raise a hue-and-cry.

There is a photo comparison that often goes viral every few months: in one photo they show Jawaharlal Nehru showing to a group of foreign dignitaries a poor, emaciated snake charmer sitting on the floor; in the adjacent photo they show a collage of photographs showing how Narendra Modi shows majestic Indian temples to foreign dignitaries and makes them participate in the grand Hindu rituals.

For example when the Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe visited India Modi took him to participate in the aarti in Varanasi. Recently Modi took the Australian PM to Akshardham Temple.

Such activities are a strict no-no among the class that dislikes Modi and Yogi. They squirm in great discomfort when Modi promotes Hindu rituals among the visiting dignitaries.

Yes, if you take some foreign dignitary to Jama Masjid or to a church, you are being secular and inclusive, but the moment you take someone to a Hindu temple, you have crossed the line and you are pandering to the Hindutvavadi forces.

The narrative goes somewhat like this: highlight non-Hindu religious beliefs while totally neglecting Hindu religious beliefs then you are fine. But if you highlight Hindu religious beliefs  it becomes incumbent upon you  that you also highlight non-Hindu religious beliefs. If you don’t do that, that is, you highlight only Hindu religious beliefs, then you must be branded as communal.

Even common folks with no specific political affiliations have internalized such biases.

Modi and Yogi inspire the people of the country to do their best

Which other Prime Minister prompted you to keep your county clean the last time? Which Prime Minister advised you to cease defecating in the open and start building indoor toilets? A senior BBC India journalist from Uttar Pradesh commented on television that the Prime Minister of the country shouldn’t indulge in such petty things as advising people to build toilets, such is the state of our intellectuals.

Which Prime Minister said that India shouldn’t​ just manufacture products but should manufacture the best products in the world? Take your cues from Germany, not from China. Which Prime Minister said before that our population is not a problem but an opportunity?

Our intellectual class, and people who like to think that they are smarter compared to the others, find inspiration very off-putting. If someone inspires you then you are forced to work or at least show the others that you should be working. Inspiration is for losers. They are too smart and evolved to be exposed to such inspiration.

Modi and Yogi are the antithesis of the atrophying “chalta-hai” attitude

Our chalta-hai attitude has been our undoing. Chalta-hai means dismissively accepting whatever is happening around us. If the government doesn’t work, chalta-hai. If we have a dilapidated infrastructure, chalta-hai. If there is rampant corruption, chalta-hai. If there are no schools and colleges, chalta-hai. If there is no health care for the poor, chalta-hai. If people don’t want to follow rules, chalta-hai. Kya karein? Saale Indians hain hi aise.

Both Modi and Yogi challenge this chalta-hai attitude. Why should things be mediocre in our country?

Modi and Yogi have dismantled the caste-minority political formula

The rajneetik samikaran (political arithmetic involving castes and minorities, especially Muslims) mentality still refuses to go among our Leftist journalists, intellectuals and  social commentators.

A big defence against the so-called communal politics, according to the Leftist intelligentsia and its political masters, used to be the caste and religious vote-banks that were​ initially controlled by the highly corrupt Congress party and then its various regional offshoots.

In the recently concluded UP elections the BJP has broken this vicious nexus. It has proven that Muslims no longer control who gets to form the government. The backward castes have realized that their champions were actually charlatans.

The ground level caste politics was backed with pseudo-intellectual explanation of these fault-lines in the society. Alternative reading and JNU brand sociology was presented as gospel facts, but Modi and Yogi are showing how these theories are flawed and failing.

The failing class can’t digest their own failure, so now they have to hate and pray that the duo fail in their mission. – Opindia, 19 April 2017

» Amrit Hallan is a content writer. He lives in Noida.

Indian media Left dominated!

Are Christian and Muslim nations ok and Hindu nations not? – Maria Wirth

The New York Times leads the world media in Hindu-baiting!European newspapers follow The New York Times!

Maria WirthNeither the West nor Muslim countries want a strong India. India was the cradle of civilisation and over most of the known history economically very powerful. They may fear that based on her ancient culture, India may rise again to the top. – Maria Wirth

I sometimes wonder who influences whom: the Indian mainstream journalists the foreign correspondents or the other way round, as they always hold the same view. Or is there even a directive from the top of the media houses about who must be protected and who can be abused?

Obviously, Hindus can be abused. I was shocked when I recently checked articles in major newspapers like The New York Times on the appointment of Yogi Adityanath as chief minister in Uttar Pradesh. Like in the run-up to the general elections in 2014, when a Modi victory loomed large, the media went berserk. The gist was: By appointing Yogi Adityanath, Prime Minister Modi has finally shown his true face of a Hindu fundamentalist who wants to make India a “Hindu nation” where minorities have no place. The articles peddled untruths and drew unacceptable conclusions. The Swiss NZZ for example wrote that it is hardly possible for Prime Minister Modi’s government to call itself the representative of all Indians after appointing a figure like Yogi Adityanath.

A Hindu nation is projected as the worst possible scenario by the wrongly called “liberal” media. Yet, the same media don’t react when America or most other western countries are referred to as Christian nations. Nor do they get agitated about the numerous Muslim nations; not even about those which still have harsh blasphemy laws. Why are these ok, and a Hindu nation is not ok? They don’t explain; they just insinuate that minorities (read Muslims and Christians) will suffer in a Hindu nation.

Maybe they came to this conclusion because minorities like Jews or Hindus suffer in certain Christian or Muslim nations though the media hardly pulls those countries up for it. However, even otherwise, this conclusion is wrong, as Hindus have a different mind-set. They are open towards other views, unlike “good” Christians and Muslims who feel obligated to make everyone believe what they believe, if necessary by deceit or force.

Hindus cannot be put into one single box. There are too many different ways to reach the goal of life. As it were, there are many minorities within Hinduism. But they all are based on the Vedic insight that everything, including our persons, is permeated by the same divine essence which is called by many names but is ultimately ONE. Our human consciousness (atman) is one with the cosmic consciousness (Brahman) and to realize this, is the goal and fulfillment of life. “Satyam vada, Dharmam chara” the Veda exhorts—speak the truth and do what is right under the given circumstances. And find out who you really are: you are not a separate entity but in the depths of your being one with all.

From this follows that “good” Hindus are those rare human beings whose dharma makes them regard all others as brothers and sisters. Their dharma makes them further respect nature and not harm unnecessarily any living being.

Hindus do not, unlike Christians and Muslims, divide humanity into those who are chosen by God and those who are eternally damned. Hindu children are not taught to look down on those who are not Hindus, unlike children of the dogmatic religions who are taught that their God does not love those others unless they join their ‘true’ religions.

Hindus are also comparatively kinder to animals. The great bulk of vegetarians worldwide are Hindus.

Hindus never fought crusades or jihads to establish their dharma in foreign lands. In fact, they didn’t need to, because they convinced most of Asia merely by solid arguments. Yet, for the past thousand years Hindus were at the receiving end of jihads and conversion campaigns and millions of Hindus were killed in cold blood because they were Hindus.

It has to be held in favour of Hindus that they held on to their tradition and did not succumb to the pressure and even violence brought on them to adopt blind belief that only one particular person has revealed the full truth. Instead, they continued trusting their sages who never asked for blind belief, but asked to verify their insights through experience.

So why do media worldwide get so worked up about “Hindu fundamentalists” and a possible “Hindu nation”. What is wrong with the fundamentals? There is nothing wrong with the fundamentals. But there is one major difference: For Hindus, the Divinity is in all and all is in the Divinity, whereas for Christians and Muslims the Divinity is separate from his creation watching us from somewhere.

The concept of Divinity is also different. For Hindus the best description for the absolute truth is sat-chit-ananda (it is true, aware and blissful). The many personal gods help the devotee to realize the Absolute. Christians and Muslims perceive Divinity in its highest form as a personal, superhuman entity who is jealous of other gods. The first commandment in Christianity and a very important issue in Islam is the claim that nobody must worship other gods except the “one true god”, which both religions claim is only with them.

In all likelihood the Hindu view comes closer to truth. When the first translations of Vedic texts appeared in the West, the greatest minds in Europe were greatly impressed by Indian thought. It did spread among scientists, too, who used it to push the frontiers of science further. It is no coincidence that modern science discovered that all is one energy after Vedanta became known in the west. It is also no coincidence that the Church lost much of its power in Europe when some of India’s wisdom filtered down to the masses

Why then are the media worldwide so worried about a nation where the Hindu roots are fostered? Where Sanskrit is taught, which is the most perfect, dignified, powerful language on earth and which is useful even for NASA? Where yoga is practised in schools, which is an ideal means for all-round development and which, on a deeper level, helps to find fulfilment in live? Where Vedic philosophy is studied, which inspired the new scientific discoveries for example in nuclear physics? Where the amazing wisdom of Mahabharata and Ramayana becomes common knowledge, which is already taught in business seminars abroad? Where children chant “Loka samastha sukhino bhavantu” (let all be happy) instead of Humpty Dumpty, which happens already in certain schools in the West?

Yet as soon as Hindus make suggestions for India to keep its Hindu character or rather, to gain back its Hindu character, as even after Independence, the youth was encouraged to abandon it, there is an outcry by the media that “Hindu fundamentalists” want to make India a Hindu nation and exclude religious minorities. Ironically, “Hindu” is a geographical term, with the same root as Indian—people who lived beyond the Sindhu or between the Himalayas and the Indian Ocean.

So why would Indians who rather recently converted to Islam or Christianity not be proud of the achievements of their ancestors? India was the cradle of civilization, a knowledge hub and the richest country on earth. It was known for its wisdom. Greeks, including Pythagoras, are said to have come to India for knowledge and today everybody knows his name, but not the name of the Indian mathematician—Baudhayana—who originally discovered the Pythagoras theorem. Surely Christians and Muslims cannot have any objection that students are taught this fact or the fact that the Rishis of the Rig Veda (10.22.14) knew many thousand years before Copernicus that the earth goes around the sun. Surely they also cannot have any objection that students chant “May all be happy” in Sanskrit, the language of their forefathers. If someone calls such teaching communal it is malicious. If someone objects to this teaching, should not he be shouted at by the media instead of those who want to revive their ancient culture? Is not he the one who tries to divide society and not those who say “Vasudhaiva kutumbakam” (all is one family) due to their philosophical outlook?

Hindus are the exemplary role model for “how not to exclude others”? Where else have religious minorities flourished and grown like in India? Is not the relative harmony in this amazing diversity in India generally admired abroad? Media persons need only to look around in the world to realize this fact.

Why then are Hindus of all people accused of excluding others?

The reason may be this: neither the West nor Muslim countries want a strong India. India was the cradle of civilisation and over most of the known history economically very powerful. They may fear that based on her ancient culture, India may rise again to the top. Is it the media’s job to put Hindus perpetually on the defensive by spreading this bogey of Hindu fundamentalism and prevent a better education policy which would give India an edge?

“Imagine, India would become a Hindu nation!” the media shout infuriated. The problem, however, is that they don’t imagine it and don’t ask basic questions. If they only imagined what a Hindu nation looks like, they might start propagating Hindu nations all over the globe for harmony and peace in the world.

One day, when people have become tired of blindly believing strange things, and when nobody is threatened any longer with dire consequences if he stops believing in those strange things, the world may be grateful to Bharat Mata that she has conceived and preserved over millennia those eternal, precious insights for the benefit of humanity. – Maria Wirth Blog, 21 April 2017

» Maria Wirth is a German author and psychologist who has lived in Uttarkhand for decades.

Yogi Adityanath