Why secularism in India lost its meaning – David Frawley

Congress Secularism

Vamadeva Shastri / David FrawleyIndia’s secularism became a form of communalism in disguise. … India’s secularism became synonymous with the idea that everything Hindu is bad and everything anti-Hindu is secular and good, extending even to Christian missionaries or Islamic jihad. India’s secularism can accommodate the Shari’ah or the Vatican, but not the Vedas or the Gita. – Dr David Frawley

The era during which the Nehruvian idea of secularism dominated India’s political discourse and dictated the country’s national narrative is definitely over. This opens the floodgates to real insight, vision and exploration about what India truly is, its great civilisation since ancient times, and its possible leading role in the knowledge-oriented world today.


The idea of secularism in India was not necessarily entirely bad to begin with. That a country of such religious and cultural diversity should not be driven by an exclusive theistic belief—such as motivated European secularists to counter Christian theocracy—did not at face value seem wrong, particularly to educated minds in India who aspired perhaps more than anything to be progressive.

The problem begins with the fact that such an idea of secularism is out of context in India, in which the dominant culture has been pluralistic and never theocratic, hegemonic or conquest-oriented. Theocratic-driven and supported armies invaded India but never represented its indigenous culture or dominant civilisation. They were the basis of colonialism and foreign rule that came to an end with the Independence of the country.

India’s adoption of secularism began with this dissonant note of a secular agenda from Europe that only created confusion in the Indian discourse. India needed a full national awakening from foreign rule, freeing both the land and the minds of its people, and casting off the centuries long denigration of its civilisation that attempted to destroy its heritage.

Unfortunately, this new idea of secularism in India worked to continue the oppression of the Indic mind and heart that had spread from such foreign rulers as Mahmud of Ghazni to Queen Victoria. Secularism, as it developed in India, represented another form of Eurocentric thinking that perpetrated the Western cultural assault on India.

In India, secularism became opposed to an opposite idea of communalism, identified with everything bad, with secularism as the highest good. Again, the idea of rejecting communalism does not at surface value sound bad. It suggests standing against divisive forces driven by theocratic-based compulsions of conversion and conquest. But such a threat of communalism as in Europe and West Asia was not relevant to India’s dharmic civilisation either, with its syncretic trends and unbroken continuity of culture.

Also, unfortunately, Europe’s new secular states, like Britain, were happy to support conversion agendas as a matter of foreign policy as much as they might question religious authority in their own countries, a policy that has continued even from the US. Conversion was justified in promoting the “civilising” forces of the West.


The result was that India’s secularism became a form of communalism in disguise. It continued colonial agendas of keeping Hindu, Buddhist and dharmic traditions divided, discredited and suppressed. India’s secularism became synonymous with the idea that everything Hindu is bad and everything anti-Hindu is secular and good, extending even to Christian missionaries or Islamic jihad. India’s secularism can accommodate the Shari’ah or the Vatican, but not the Vedas or the Gita.

India’s secularism was further recast in a Leftist format that had also its origins and more appropriate place in Europe, invented for countering imperialism of which India was a victim, not a representative. India’s secularism quickly became a subterfuge for a larger Leftist agenda, allied with communism, the erstwhile Soviet Union and Communist China as role models for proper secular nations.

Secular views of India’s history became a mask for far-Left distortions and an attempt to cut Indians off from their own greater civilisational ethos, to which was added the new defamation of India’s culture as being anti-secular, on top of the old charges of heathen, kafir, idolatrous and superstitious.

In India, it became a sin not to be secular, an idea that journalists and academics were particularly infected with. And being secular could also provide forgiveness for all other sins and shortcomings, something that corrupt politicians could use to redeem themselves and justify their scams.


This means that a post-secular India is the same as India in the post-Marxist, post-Nehruvian era. Post-secular India is India in the time during which the hegemony of the Congress in the country is over.

How do we define this post-secular era? It is not a new communal era, but the end of the secular promotion of communal divisions as electoral vote-banks. It is India completing its Independence movement by reaffirming its own civilisational identity. Post-secular India is the era of a New India, which is a renewed India or awakened Bharat. Such an India is beyond the right-left, secular-communal dualities of Western politics and reaffirms its own dharmic values and yogic culture.

Certainly there was a great effort to create such an awakened India during the Independence era itself by such inspired thinkers as Vivekananda and Aurobindo, but it fell short and became obscured by the Nehruvian secular socialist agenda that aimed to shut it down as an electoral threat to the new Congress dynastic rule.

As the darkness of this contrived and manipulative view of secularism gets removed, there is now space for India to emerge once more as a nation, culture, and civilisation in its own right, not a shadow of the very foreign ideologies and theocracies that have long been trying to subvert it. This is not only of tremendous value to the country but of inestimable value to the world that needs a different model of country, religion, and civilisation than current conflicting forms. The wisdom of India’s rishis and yogis remains relevant for India and for all humanity. – Daily-O, 8 September 2017

Secularism of Congress



Is there a need to rewrite Indian history? – Anil Athale

Gunga Din

Col Dr Anil AthaleHistory is not merely a chronicle of past events; it forms the psyche of a nation. … If in the 70th year of Independence we are stirring to break the mindset of being the Gunga Din of Rudyard Kipling’s poem, it is something to applaud. – Col Dr Anil Athale

There has been hullabaloo over the change/obliteration of certain historic events and personalities from history textbooks in Rajasthan, Gujarat and Maharashtra, all BJP-ruled states. While our “learned” netas burst into histrionics to prove their itihaas, some historians say the reality of India is that we don’t know about our own history because we are such “colonised” people.

A lively debate has begun in the media on the issue of changes made in the history textbooks of schools in Rajasthan and now in Maharashtra. Not having studied Rajput history or the battle of Haldighati, which is now being claimed as a victory for Rana Pratap and not Akbar, I will refrain from commenting on the issue. But applying pure military logic, if Akbar had won such a great or comprehensive victory, how did Rana Pratap survive and subsequently establish his own kingdom at Udaipur?

It must be noted that none of Akbar’s adversaries who lost a battle against him survived to tell the tale. But as mentioned earlier, the whole episode needs further research.

It is a well-known fact that history is written by the victors. Since large parts of Rajasthan and North India remained under Mughal sway, this “bias” in the narration of events is easily understood. If one is now looking at the facts afresh, there is nothing to get hot under the collar about.

The reality of India is that we don’t know about our own history because we are such colonised people. Even today, we are unable to break away from a colonised mindset. We lack a sense of history, and with that we lose stature in the world.

As to the tweaking of history, since most of the time it was the Congress that was in power, it had the maximum opportunity. As far as ancient or colonial history is concerned, it was more an act of omission rather than commission. Indian historians have been one of the laziest intellectuals with very little new research. Post-Independence governments continued to teach colonial-era history with a heavy pro-British bias. Partly, this was due to the fact that most Indians of that generation, including the freedom fighters, were in awe of the British.

The post-Independence history of the 1962 India-China war has been doctored to absolve Nehru of all blame and instead made Krishna Menon the fall guy.

The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has been in power for a very short time and has not had the opportunity to tailor history to suit itself. The BJP has concentrated mainly on correcting the pro-British and pro-Muslim bias of history.

On the heels of correctives applied in Rajasthan textbooks, comes news of similar exercise in Maharashtra. Objections have been raised about downsizing Akbar and Mughal rulers. The “usual suspects” have raised the spectre of “saffronisation” of history. The counter-argument to this is was Akbar relevant to the region that comprises Maharashtra? And the honest answer to that is no. The Mughals ruled in Delhi and were confined to the North Indian plains. Other than an unsuccessful attempt to annex the Ahmednagar sultanate, at that time led by Chand Bibi, the Mughals and Akbar had little role in the politics or social life of contemporary Maharashtra. It was only during the time of Akbar’s grandson Aurangzeb that Mughal rule came to Maharashtra.

The recent controversies ought to have raised the fundamental distortion of Indian historiography—the pronounced North Indian bias. Maharashtra formed part of the Chalukya empire for a very long time. It then came under the sway of the great Vijaynagar empire. Yet, our history teaching cursorily dismisses these important periods. It is obsessed with the happenings in Delhi and its surroundings.

Since the British were the last rulers of India, the pro-British bias is even more pronounced. For example, Warren Hastings essentially ruled the Bengal region. But he is portrayed as the Governor General of India! It should be mentioned here that during that time, Mahadji Shinde, the Maratha ruler of Gwalior, had more territory under his control. Yet, in the history books, written mostly by the British, Warren Hastings commands a whole chapter with Mahadji Shinde only getting a passing reference.

The neglect of the Cholas and Pallavas and the sidelining of their commendable maritime empire in the all India narrative is scandalous to say the least. The thoroughly colonised mindset of Bengal has forgotten about its South East Asian links altogether. Stone plaques in the Pallava script are found in faraway Samarinda, capital of Central Kalimanthan (old Borneo). And it is only now that Lachit Borphukan, who defeated the Mughal armies in the battle of Saraighat in 1671, has come into the national consciousness.

The Mughals and British colonial rulers did not just stop at the imposition of their narrative, they also destroyed many monuments that could remind Indians of her past. The British conquered Pune in 1818. At that time there was a seven-storey high palace inside the awe-inspiring Shaniwarwada fort, easily the tallest building in India at that time. On February 27, 1828, a great “mysterious” fire started inside the palace complex. The conflagration raged for seven days. Only the heavy granite ramparts, strong teak gateways and deep foundations and ruins of the buildings within the fort survived that mysterious fire. Result, when in a recent movie on Bajirao, the filmmakers showed a magnificent palace, many even in Maharashtra termed it fiction.

Colonised Indian minds have been repeatedly taught: ours is history, yours is mythology. If in the 70th year of Independence we are stirring to break the mindset of being the Gunga Din of Rudyard Kipling’s poem, it is something to applaud.

History is not merely a chronicle of past events; it forms the psyche of a nation. History of having achieved great things in the past, together, fosters nationalism and enthuses the present generations to achieve great things. It is time we break the shackles of “Inglistani elite” (Mahatma Gandhi in his essay Hind Swaraj) and discover our true past.


  • July 2017: The Rajasthan Education Board decides not to mention Jawaharlal Nehru in the new social science textbooks of Class VIII.
  • Rajasthan education minister Vasudev Devnani claims Maharana Pratap defeated Mughal emperor Akbar in the battle of Haldighati in 1576, and not the other way round.
  • A chapter on the national movement omits names of Nehru, Sarojini Naidu and Madan Mohan Malviya. Also, no mention of Mahatma Gandhi’s assassination by Nathuram Godse.
  • July 2017: The Maharashtra Education Board reduces Mughal reign to just three lines and decides to focus more on Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj in history textbooks of Class VII and IX.
  • May 2016: Gujarat State Board of School Textbooks introduces a chapter on ‘economic thought’ in the Economic Higher Secondary textbooks which includes Deendayal Upadhyay, Chanakya and Mahatma Gandhi as the main economic thinkers.
  • January 2009: The Class X Social Science textbook of Chhattisgarh Board of Secondary Education incorporates the Salwa Judum in a chapter on social security from Naxalism. – Deccan Chronicle, 14 August 2017

» Col Dr Anil Athale (retd) is the former head of history division, Ministry of Defence. He has written a book about 18th and 19th century India. He is based in Pune.

Indian soldiers on the China border

See also

Sri Krishna vs. Jesus Christ in Warsaw Court – Media Report

Krishna & Gopis

A Catholic nun in Warsaw, Poland, wanted ISKCON banned because its followers were glorifying a character called Krishna “who had loose morals,” having married 16,000 women called Gopikas. – Media Report

With the rapid spread of Hinduism worldwide, a Catholic nun in Warsaw, Poland, filed a case against ISKCON (International Society for Krishna Consciousness) regarding Lord Krishna.

The case came up in court. The nun stated that ISKCON was spreading its activities and gaining followers in Poland. She wanted ISKCON banned because its followers were glorifying a character called Krishna “who had loose morals,” having married 16,000 women called Gopikas.

The ISKCON defendant requested the judge, “Please ask the nun to repeat the oath she took when she was ordained as a nun.” The judge asked the nun to recite the oath loudly. She would not. The ISKCON man asked permission if he could read out the oath for the nun. Go ahead, said the judge. The oath said in effect that the nun was married to Jesus Christ.

The ISKCON man said, “Your Lordship! Lord Krishna is alleged to have ‘married’ 16,000 women only. There are more than a million nuns who assert that they are married to Jesus Christ. Between the two, Krishna and Jesus, who has a loose character? And what about the nuns?”

The case was dismissed.


RSS counters China’s OBOR with India’s OCOR – Financial Express

Silk Road

Organiser MagazineIndia should develop the concept of One Culture, One Region (OCOR) to counter OBOR as history doesn’t support China’s claim on the Silk Road. – Ravi Shankar & Newton Mishra

The imperialistic designs of China’s ambitious One Belt, One Road (OBOR) initiative has been discussed across the world, even as Beijing claims the initiative will serve as a platform to promote free-trade, counter anti-globalisation trend and promote harmonious coexistence and cooperation among participating nations. An article in Organiser, mouth piece of Rashtriya Swayam Sangh (RSS), argues that China’s claims are lies. It says that by OBOR, China is trying to show that the “Silk Road” was its historical contribution to the world civilisation.

The OBOR initiative includes a maze of roads and port projects including China–Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), Bangladesh, China, India, Myanmar (BCIM) Economic Corridor, New Eurasian Land Bridge, China-Mongolia-Russia Economic Corridor, China-Indochina Peninsula Economic Corridor and 21st century Maritime Silk Road.

The article claims that China “actually wants to dominate the region to overpower India” with the help of OBOR. Similar concerns were also raised by the international media after the first OBOR Summit in China in May. The New York Times had termed OBOR as “global commerce on China’s terms.” It said that Beijing aims to “create a new kind of globalisation that would dispense with the rules of the ageing Western-dominated institutions. The goal is to refashion the global economic order, drawing countries and companies more tightly into China’s orbit.”

So, how to counter OBOR? The article in RSS mouthpiece suggests India should develop the concept of One Culture, One Region (OCOR) to counter OBOR as “history doesn’t support China’s claim on the Silk Road.”

The article has been jointly written by Ravi Shankar, Research Director at Center for Civilisational Studies, New Delhi and Newton Mishra, co-founder, India Internal and International Relationship Research Center, New Delhi.

The authors have tried to bust, what they believe to be “myths” about the Silk Road. First, they say Silk Road is not just a road. According to the article, the term Silk Road was first coined by German geographer Ferdinend Von Rekthofan in 1877 and later supported by another German geographer August Hermann in 1915. Hermann’s essay “The Silk Roads from China to the Roman Empire”, the article argues, “highlighted a common, but misleading sense attached to the silk-road notion: that its importance lay mainly in linking China to the Mediterranean basin.”

According to the authors, the name of Silk Road came into existence only in 1877 but the trade in the Eurasian region had flourished since ancient times. Shankar and Mishra say the region was termed as “Uttarapath” by King Ashoka in 232 BC. Even as China claims that this trade road was developed during Han Dynasty rule in 220 BC, the authors say the map of the period show China was a very small country then. “In fact, before Yuan Dynasty in the thirteenth century, China had never had any say in the Eurasian region. The Yuan dynasty was not a Chinese dynasty; it was the great Mongol Empire. China was only a part of that Empire and at that time the capital Beijing was also not the part of China.”

Second, the authors say Silk Road was not meant only for the business of Silk. Many items and ideas were transmitted across Eurasia through the route. The items like domesticated horse, cotton, spices, chemicals, paper and gunpowder) had a “far greater impact than silk.”

Third, Shankar and Mishra say the Silk Road was not dominated by Chinese traders but by “Indian traders who actually travelled and traded in the entire Eurasian region.” They mention Multan as the biggest trading centres on the so-called Silk Road route, even before the Mauryan Dynasty. “The Hindu traders were at the heart of the Eurasian economics.”

The authors say that all rulers of the region had extended their “protection” to Hindu traders from India. “The Uzbek Khans created a separate administrative post Yasavul-i-Hinduwan meaning Guardians of Hindus. Persian Safavid Empire also gave protection to the Hindu traders so that they can practice their rituals despite the protest of locale Muslims.”

With these “facts”, the article says India, not China had developed the trade route and contributed culturally in the form of ancient Hindu and Buddhist thoughts. “It was Indian philosophy that influenced China. But despite this commercial and cultural supremacy, India never tried to gain political advantage.”

The authors say that the cultural vacuum cannot be fulfilled by “imperialist concept” like OBOR. It can be done by a “human and philosophical approach” and only India has the history of doing so and the country can do it again by promoting “OCOR”.

They suggest that OCOR should be developed as SAARC for the Eurasian countries and Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran and all Eurasian countries should become a part of it. “OCOR will provide only a common platform for the trade of the commodities and ideas. Its agenda can be developed on the theories of common points of all the different ideological beliefs of this region,” they write.

While OCOR will help in curbing terrorism, war insurgencies, violence and ideological hatred, the authors say it can also teach the world about how to live and progress “with the ideological differences leaving behind all the hatred, unrest and authoritarianism.” – Financial Express, 24 July 2017

Dalai Lama



Anarchists stoking campus unrest – K. G. Suresh


K. G. SureshPseudo intellectuals who have made a fortune through the liberal largesse of successive governments in the past, are finding themselves cornered today with the new regime strictly implementing academic discipline and norms. – K. G. Suresh

A planned, deliberate exercise is being undertaken by sections of frustrated, desperate and ideologically isolated faculty and students to denigrate and destabilise prestigious educational institutions, including universities, across the country. That these anarchist elements, who have enjoyed the fruits of power over the last several decades at the cost of academic discipline, accountability and standards, are becoming unnerved by the loss of their empire, is evident from the artificial protests and propaganda being unleashed from time to time ever since a new dispensation has taken over the reins at the Raisina Hill.

From Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) in the north and Film and Television Institute of India in the west, to Hyderabad University in the south and Jadavpur University in the east, these elements have been trying to foment trouble and orchestrate campaigns over flimsy issues to project the government and its appointees as anti-Dalit, anti-women and anti-minorities, in connivance with fellow travellers in the media.

The pattern is the same. The foot soldiers of an ideology, which carried out the inhuman purge in Russia, the ruthless cultural revolution in China, the ethnic cleansing in Tibet, the gross human rights violations in Siberia and Xinjiang, the suppression of democracy by crushing students under military tanks in Tiananmen Square, have become ironically the self-proclaimed champions of democracy and human rights in India.

From Gajendra Chauhan to Pahlaj Nihalani and B. B. Kumar, among others, all appointees of the present regime are portrayed as ‘mediocre’, agents of the RSS and accused of saffronisation. The spit-and-run tactics of these foreign-funded activists in the garb of academics and students include making wild, sweeping, unsubstantiated allegations the moment any effort is made to make them accountable or disciplined.

They are trying to build a new narrative—that students should be consulted before the appointment of any head of the institution, and administration should not take any decision without taking faculty into confidence, even on non-academic matters. Any effort to make them accountable, including insistence on biometric attendance, is outrightly rejected. Any attempt to get vacated their long-held positions or ineligible occupation of hostels are construed as undemocratic acts, and licence to abuse is touted as freedom of speech and expression.

These pseudo intellectuals, who have made a fortune through the liberal largesse of successive governments in the past, are finding themselves cornered today with the new regime strictly implementing academic discipline and norms.

Over the years, they had penetrated every institution thanks to undeserving patronage extended to them by their godfathers. In the process, they also ensured that those who disagreed with their world view were denied their due. Being a nationalist became the albatross around the neck of many deserving academics. Nobody talked about their freedom of thought and expression—their academic freedom. They were at the receiving end in academic appointments and promotions. The nation’s academia was dominated by a mafia, which determined their fate and pushed them into the netherworld with contempt and ruthlessness.

The current protests and propaganda are only acts of desperation by these so-called scholars who have realised that their time is over, their game is up and the golden days of their dominance over national institutions are no more. The crusade undertaken by institutions such as JNU to remove the scourge of political untouchability, discrimination and apartheid that have been pursued over the last several decades, must be appreciated by all right-thinking people and supported by the government. Only then can Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s dream of a New India be fully realised. – The New Indian Express, 16 July 2017

» K. G. Suresh is the Director General of the Indian Institute of Mass Communication in New Delhi.

AISA anti-national protest at JNU

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.


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.


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.


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