Guiding the right-wing and saving India from insanity and incompetence

We hope the philosopher in T S Eliot shall be so magnanimous as to forgive our idolatrous commitment to our respective mental biases when we make bold to assert that our adherence to our respective political positions is as affirmed as the Earth’s sphericity. For he might have expected society to cognize his sagacious reasoning that enjoined, “Our own prejudice and emotional bias always seems to us so rational.” One condoles with the woes of the moral compasses in society who remind society to abjure the path of dysfunctionality lest the intellectuals of yore “roll in their graves”.

Yet, an acceptance of one’s demerits is an indicator of commencement of the voyage to self-progress. Biased we are and biased we shall remain. To expect absolute freedom therefrom is to be fallacious. The sheer number of nuances encompassed by this negatively construed word could lead to the genesis of innumerable research articles and case studies. One is never truly free of bias, for even adherence to a view conventionally termed neutral is to be biased towards an element of rationality. The ever so subtle difference lies in the perception of the said bias. For there can only be so many situationally appropriate stances at any point in time that need be adhered to. The slightest of deviance from them is but of course a negative bias. Contrary to it is a positive bias that, in lay language, is called “the greater good” or at least a bias dedicated thereto.

Concluded as studies have in early 2010s the eight-second-attention-span of humans which may well have diminished today, and given the fact that authors might as well write for goldfishes owing to their longer attention span, I seek to forewarn the readers of the prolonged nature of this write-up and the possible mental enervation it may cause. To call it an essay would be an understatement. I prefer to call it a lecture, for truly so it is a lecture in itself. I sought to introduce this lecture of mine with the ostensibly disparate topic of bias, for the impending onslaught of my opinionated words do not befit academic standards of supposed neutrality. Proceed as I do to enumerate observations in this lecture, there shall be more often than not no hard statistic to validate my claims. Little would be found to substantiate them other than historical precedent and observations of current affairs, thereby appearing heavily biased. However, I consider my biases positive in nature and ipso facto for the “greater good”.

Accordingly, I make an impassioned appeal to the readers to expel the very natural, very human propensity to judge. Your observations may not concur with mine, and given that the ability to analyze and arrive at individual conclusions is a precise indicator of our humanness, your discord shall assuredly not shock or anger me. For we live in an era of contention, and the most insignificant of differences serve to inflame passions. As the eminent economist and social theorist Thomas Sowell once wrote: “I am so old that I can remember when liberals were liberal, and when common decency was actually common.” Additions to one’s perspectives and consequent augmentation of one’s worldview can only be ensured by means of dispassionate and wholly academic exchange of assorted opinions. Misplaced passion breeds contempt, and contempt for others’ views can often be among the worst forms of contempt one may ever face.

I happen to trust that the intrinsic goodness of humans enables them to maintain good interpersonal relations at an individual level notwithstanding differences of opinions. The happenings at the academic level, however, warrant a research project by themselves. I remain a proponent of academic standards, but the academia itself appears to have forsworn its sense of dispassion and courtesy. Contemporary academia happens to be wedded to extreme views, the more vocal voices in it wedded to the voices of today’s political Left. It artfully dons a veneer of evidence-based propagation, concocted though the evidence may be. Consequently, my article would mean little to them. I, therefore, appeal to the readers to set aside the potential opinions of the academia on my lecture, in the unlikely event that it secures a wide readership. I make the rare entreaty to the readers: set aside austere adherence to statistical evidence, and trust your logic and intuition as you ascend the palisade of my contentions.

No sooner did I renounce the cherished yet tumultuous stream of engineering in favour of the somewhat unpopular stream of political science, than I was plagued with the question as regards the importance of history. However, I have arrived at an answer at long last. The answer shall gradually manifest as this essay proceeds. Away from and perhaps indifferent to the contentions between traditional religious groups, are the students of a discipline that has become a religion in itself: engineering. I bring them in particular to the fore for they enjoy a preponderance in the national student community in India. Millions of them are released into the labour force every year. I hardly need illustrate their unfortunate state of affairs; numerous people have expressed concerns as regards their unemployability. With the education sector in pressing need of reforms and a general, pressing lack of investment in human capital in India, what does the average student care for history, society and politics? Of what use are they to him when his chief concern is his employment and fundamental sustenance?

Truly so, a BTech degree remains a tried and tested mechanism to ensure employment. Globalization may have yielded opportunities in other fields, but a general lack of entrepreneurial spirit has ensured more or less a rigid commitment to the conventional BTech degree followed by a nine to five job in the corporate world. Not that I harbour a derisive sentiment with regard to a corporate job — I unequivocally endorse capitalism and greater industrialization. It is the inability to employ a holistic outlook that is a source of consternation; making money is the focus to so great an extent as to lead us to ignore society and be indifferent to its nuances. It is difficult for the products of our education system to see the hidden connections between politics and economics. Ask the average young engineering graduate, or any non-liberal-arts graduate for that matter, about the religious contention between the Hindus and the Muslims. The possibilities in terms of a response are (a) ambivalence (b) pacifist hopes of them “sorting it out” (c) liberalist contempt for both communities and (d) change of topic. I admit to the possibility of ignoring further such potential responses, but the aforesaid would, by and large, be the responses.

One could hardly blame them. Engaging in a discussion with them with regard to esoteric concepts of the significance of secularism is — and I am not being hyperbolic while writing as much — akin to explaining economics to a toddler. They do not understand anthropological evolution of religions, their historical conflicts, their relationship with the state, their fragile relationships that have not necessarily been forged by a common endeavour but by a forced need to stay together and so forth. They, therefore, do not cognize the profound psychological phenomena that eventually compel religious/ethnic/cultural factions to arise. None of them truly understand, for instance, the reasons behind the resurgence of Hindutva in India. To them, everything pertinent to religion is inimical to unity. It is best to encourage them to study so that they may be mature enough to formulate informed opinions. Debate, I contend, is not an appropriate mechanism.

Elementarily, the Indian society is an incomprehensible entity. On one hand is the youth segment that prima facie appears interested in nothing other than career. To some extent, it is a valid interest, for a stable career inevitably means economic independence. Notably, the ability of bearing one’s costs is among the most desirable abilities of them all, and the sentiment concomitant therewith is of an exhilarating, butterflies-in-the-stomach kind. One becomes aware of one’s grown-up status and inevitable responsibility. On the other hand, however, the politicians who spare no effort at wooing the youth, appear predominantly interested in politics that revolve not around reasoned disagreements as regards economic and national security policies, but around primordial identities of caste and religion. Superficially, there is no propinquity between the two. This is precisely where we all err. Such caste and religion-driven politics is more closely related to economics than we would like to imagine.

In order to understand that seemingly magical but actually obvious connection between the two, understanding history is of utmost essence. The analogy that I proceed to use hereunder has been used by me earlier in a verbatim manner. Nonetheless, it is so crucial to my argument that I cannot desist from doing so.

Momentarily, pray reflect upon the Second World War. The mind inevitably imagines Nazi Germany and the petrifying mistreatment of the Jews. Now, reflect upon what has happened thereafter. The Jews spread far and wide, but stayed fundamentally united. They ensured that their story appealed to the conscience of the world. The civilized world today knows of the Jews as a much persecuted religious group that has with its forbearance built the state of Israel — a nation no less than an epitome of success.

There remains, however, a national group that was persecuted in far greater measure. That national group is that of the Hindus. The Hindus are misunderstood as a religious group — courtesy the paramountcy of the social interpretation by colonial authorities. They constitute a national group, for they have given India its cultural identity ever since the dawn of civilization, the Indian one verily being the oldest. A comprehensive explanation transcends the scope of this lecture but has been covered by me here. To their misfortune, they were not persecuted in a physical way alone. They remain under persecution intellectually. They have faced centuries of enslavement, but none so daunting as the last two of them. They attained administrative independence but not independence of thought. As thousands of their temples were desecrated, their women subjected to indescribable depravity and their universities set afire under the Islamist rule, the Hindus put up a valiant fight, and even succeeded in expanding again and establishing a highly powerful empire — the Maratha Empire. However, the later invaders, namely the British, were much more cold and calculating. That they had sophisticated weaponry is a significant yet insufficient explanation. They exploited internal differences, succeeded in positioning one ruler against the other, secured loyalty from numerous natives and succeeded in establishing its colonial rule over the nation. That alone did not suffice. The Hindus were systematically stripped of their strengths. Their scriptures were derisively dismissed as myth, their cultural institutions shocked almost beyond recondition by the gradual effacement of their language — Sanskrit — their people gradually made to accept that they were an inferior race meant to serve their colonial masters, their education system dismantled and replaced and the divisions of their people amplified manifold. Compendiously, their sense of pride and memories of its past valour were scrupulously suppressed and a sense of defeatism engendered within them. As a consequence, there remains a significant section in the Hindu community to date driven by pathological contempt for its own identity despite decades of administrative independence. Nothing but imbecilic self-disgust explains its sense of wonder at the historical monuments of lands beyond, but contempt at temples of the land that is its own. The Hindu community is perchance the only community to possess so formidable a heritage as to continue with its survival despite such oppression, yet a significant number of whose members are afflicted with the despicable Stockholm syndrome.

In the contemporary era, it is very common for the younger generation of Indians to be enamoured of the western lifestyle. Courtesy of globalization, the western culture is more or less familiar to many Indian youngsters. As a psychologist, or even as a general parent, one would be aware of a common complaint registered by teenagers: the absence of privacy. They then contrast it with developed nations of the west where children are given greater privacy by their parents. These notions of privacy stem from individualism, an integral component of liberalism, upon the foundations of which western society was built. Identifying with individualism, it may be difficult for the average youngster to appreciate the fact that Indian society, in contrast with the west, has been a community-oriented and collectivist society, although this was a contortion. It may also be difficult for such a youngster to appreciate that Indians in general and Hindus in particular have traditionally had a national consciousness. The nation existed not as a political nation-state but as a culturally united entity. The Hindus have been aware of their distinct identity, their heritage and their duty to protect it. Their scriptures are replete with poetic verses venerating this Land of the Seven Rivers.

That the Hindu community is afflicted with the Stockholm syndrome is a reasoned allegation. Completely stripped of its self-pride during the British Raj, it was so enamoured of its masters that it injudiciously subscribed to the Eurocentric notions of secularism, liberalism, democracy etc. without caring to suitably mould them to Indian standards. Secularism is among the worst incorporations to our country. For all his supposed erudition and intellect, Prime Minister Nehru failed catastrophically in understanding the nuances of Indian society. To his Marxist worldview, the mere act of attending a ceremony at the Somnath Temple constituted “Hindu revivalism” and therefore inimical to secularism. To that extent, he endeavoured his best to stop a cabinet member K.M. Munshi as well as President Rajendra Prasad himself from doing so.

To the credit of the Constituent Assembly in general and the Chairman of the Drafting Committee, Dr. Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar in particular, the preamble to the Constitution did not contain the word “secular” in its description of India. As Professor Anand Ranganathan writes:

Reading the Constitutional debates, one astonishing fact emerges — that our founding fathers might not have inserted the word SECULAR in our Preamble but they drafted for us a secular Constitution, or as close to a secular Constitution they could get. Their minds lived and breathed secularism. They were convinced that the future for India lay in secularism. But it wasn’t enlightened European secularism. It was a glorious Indianised version of it. Glorious because it took into account our history and civilisation and yet stayed true to the path of religious equality.

So why didn’t these seculars insert the word SECULAR in the Preamble? Because they knew their draft intervened heavily in religious matters when a secular Constitution technically must not. The founding of Articles 15(4), 16(5), 17, 25, and 45 meant that our Constitution was laying down rules as to how certain practices within religions are unconstitutional, even criminal, while other practices that hurt a particular religious sentiment but are practiced by other religious groups — like cow slaughter — are to be banned. Additionally, the question of religious education — that entailed extraordinarily heated debates on how a secular state should conduct itself — made it obvious that the word SECULAR was now redundant in the Indian context.

Professor Ranganathan then proceeds to presciently note that sixty-five (now seventy) years from the time our forefathers gifted to us our most precious possession, “we are happy to uphold the Preamble written by Indira Gandhi but not one written by Ambedkar.” It may be recalled that while India reeled under Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s emergency, the words “socialist” and “secular” were added to the Constitution by means of the 42nd Amendment. That the Honourable Supreme Court of India has hitherto not found the temerity to strike it down as unconstitutional raises disquieting questions with regard to its title as the defender of our Constitution. I, however, would not elucidate upon it any further. Subjected as I might be to a contempt of court notice, the stigma of having to had appeared before the Hon’ble Court as a convict, coupled with the absence of public debate thereon owing to my insignificance, would prove doubly detrimental to me.

Finally, Professor Ranganathan concludes with an apt statement, “But then we are like that — we still don’t understand what the word Secular actually means. As Wittgenstein said, “Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.”” What Professor Ranganathan does not address owing to the limited nature of the topic he wrote on, was the adherence to secularism only on paper. The undeniably Nehruvian academia as well as the government under Nehru, contorted the meaning of secularism itself. To that extent, it meticulously obscured the following facts:

1. The Hindu community had historically suffered great injustices in terms of attacks on their cultural institutions and the Sanskrit language.
2. Artful frauds though the British were, it was the pernicious endeavour of the Khilafat started by a small group of Indian Muslims and inflamed into a movement by Mr. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and the Congress, that sowed the seeds of Partition. The allegiance of the Muslims was pledged not to India but to the extraterritorial entity called the caliph (leader of the Islamic world) who was also the ruler of the Ottoman Empire. The Turkish people themselves did not want his rule, and wanted to be a republic under Mustafa Kemal (Pasha) Ataturk. No one in the Muslim world construed this as an injury to their faith, but the Indian Muslims were mobilized by Mr. Gandhi on the grounds of religion. A year later, they lost patience when Mr. Gandhi’s impractical promise of the reinstation of the caliph did not materialize and they went about venting their anger by means of communal riots, which led to the Hindus retaliating and an ugly spectacle of gangsterism versus gangsterism became a norm. It was not so much the communalism on part of the Hindus as much the unceasing and compounding pan-Islamism that was responsible for the eventual brutalization of India.
3. The British narrative of the Indian Muslims having once been the rulers of India was unadulterated drivel. It was propagated in order to scare them into harbouring unfounded fears of a dystopian future under the Hindus should India be independent. Islam had arrived in India not by means of the savages who massacred, looted and raped at will, but when king Dahir of Sindh gave refuge to the Prophet’s family in India. Among the earliest mosques in the world is the Cheramaan Juma mosque in Kerala dating back to 629 CE. Muslims back then were grateful to the Hindus and lived in harmony. There is reason to believe that some such Muslims stood resolute with King Suheldev of Shravasti who united India and, ostensibly with help from Rajendra Chola, laid waste to the armies of Mahmud Ghazni’s nephew, Salar Maqsud, an act which brought respite to India from foreign invasions for almost 160 years until Muhammad Ghori’s invasion in the 1190s. There were also Indian Muslims in the army of no less than the Great Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj. There is little evidence of the hot contention between ordinary Hindus and ordinary Muslims which is seen today, in those times. As eminent author Amish Tripathi notes, the common Indian Muslims were never part of the ruling elite either under the Delhi Sultanate or the subsequent Mughal rule. To us, those invaders would have appeared Chinese, although, of course, they were not Chinese.
4. The theory of Aryan Invasion ebulliently peddled by the British was an epitome of drivel. As Amish notes, it is probably the second-best work of British fiction after all the works of William Shakespeare. Max Muller, the so-called Indologist who had not even visited India, propounded the absurd theory based purely on linguistics that the Aryan race had invaded India in 1500 BCE and subjugated the natives. The Aryans composed the Rig Veda and started Hinduism. Dr. Ambedkar had comprehensively debunked this drivel in his incisive book, “Who were the Shudras?” Today, there is much more evidence against this absurd travesty of scientific investigation. Hindu culture dates back to a minimum of 7500 BCE. The word “theory” is too respectful a title for the Aryan Invasion. There may have been piecemeal contributions by foreign migrants to the Hindu culture, but the contention that the enlightened foreign invaders hailing from the mythical paradise of Urheimat brought culture and civility to the ignorant natives was the precise weapon employed by the British to trivialize the foreign-ness of their rule. As Major General G.D. Bakshi describes this sentiment, “Hum chor, aap chor, sab chor.” (We are thieves, you are thieves, we are all thieves). To date, this absurdity is entertained by vocal sections in the academia and actively used to fuel unrest in southern India.

Taking all of the above points into consideration, one wonders why the government did little to engage in a proactive and major course correction. Either successive governments have not been competent enough to refute the colonial fabrications, or have by and large willingly continued with the status-quo to suit their political interests. The former case evinces a pressing need for education among the incompetent political leadership. The latter case warrants serious attention in greater measure, for our independence would then be restricted merely to administrative sovereignty. Intellectual colonialism is a grim indicator of the past legacy of colonialism, and the existence thereof in India is precisely what the latter case evinces. It is nothing short of treason so far as ideals go. Right from Prime Minister Nehru, every government is responsible for it. Is it any surprise, therefore, that a certain section among the people view the very democracy of India with suspicion? Does the Government of India still exist to serve the interests of British colonial rule, a rule that no longer exists?

The intelligentsia studiously avoided discussion on such uncomfortable topics. Evidently, no government had the temerity to address such challenging issues: face them and resolve them. I would go so far as to contend that the fanatical Gandhian commitment to pacifism had completely diluted the government’s ability to take tough decisions. This is evinced by Prime Minister Nehru’s refusal to pay adequate attention to military affairs, even contending that independent India was a land of ahimsa and did not need an army. That alone was not the strong negative of the Gandhian-Nehruvian disposition. Yet another negative was its policy of propitiation of the Muslims. Mr. Gandhi had set this precedent when (a) he turned the Khilafat into a massive agitation (b) he refused to condemn the fanatic Abdul Rashid who assassinated Swami Shraddhanand and went so far as to call him “my dear brother Abdul Rashid” and say, “I do not consider him an assassin” and “we must look into his mindset and understand him”. The last sentence appears eerily familiar in the modern context, where a section of the intelligentsia pleads for mercy for avowed enemies of the State and also pleads that the circumstances, which must have forced them to adopt the path of terrorism, be understood. As Thomas Sowell says, “one of the mysteries of the ages is why the political left has, for centuries, lavished so much attention on the well-being of criminals and paid so little attention to their victims.” The results of that policy of propitiation are manifest in full resplendence. Dare any government raze a mosque in India, an act routinely undertaken even in Islamic countries? Dare any government subject mosques to government control? It took decades before the practice of Triple Talaq was abolished, a practice long-banned even by such rogue states as Pakistan. The unity of the Muslims in India is enviable.

Does the millennial generation know such facets of history? Many from earlier generations, too, may not have been aware. The present manner of teaching history in India can safely be termed among the most abominable manners in the history of teaching history. The momentous events of the past entrenched into the collective national consciousness serve as lessons to statesmen and common populace alike, and the restriction thereof to unidimensional propagation is but a catalyst for recurring errors. Examination and propagation of history in India since independence has hardly ever been objective. It has been constricted to obsequious praises of the ruling elite composed of constitutionalist agitators of the freedom struggle who were members of the Indian National Congress, thereby evading sufficient mention of those who chose the perilous path of armed rebellion.

How profound and positive must the notions of non-violence, compassion, globalism and humanity appear! Truly, such notions could only be incorporated by enlightened saints or people with saintlike temperament. Nevertheless, in times of institutionalized oppression, a saint is of as much use as is a mirage in a desert. From afar they show hope of a thirst quenched and a life nourished, only to metamorphose into bitter disenchantment and pessimism upon contact. Of what comfort is the assurance of spiritual bliss to the family of a man sent to the gallows for having fought for the same rights as enjoyed by citizens of civilized nations, so unabashedly violated by those whose home country had birthed contemporary liberalism? Fortitude then is nothing short of emasculation, and fanatical adherence thereto an unerring path to disaster.

And what misfortune could be greater than having been emasculated as such, merely to be hounded not only by the colonial masters, but by fellow citizens spellbound by the supposed paradisaical fruits of an endeavour — a pernicious amalgamation of religion and politics — dedicated to the reinstation of a foreign ruler in a foreign country; an endeavour of absolutely no consequence or benefit to the national endeavour for freedom?

The choice between religious fraternity and national fraternity has historically been contentious. While the fragmentation of the Ottoman Empire owing to, inter alia, the prepotency of Turkish nationalism over Islamic fraternalism has been well-chronicled, the contention between Islamic fraternalism and Indian nationalism in the days of the Khilafat movement has often been trivialized. Most historians even today scrupulously avoid discussion thereon. The Khilafat movement is the same pernicious amalgamation of religion and politics as alluded to in the previous paragraph. The curious may proceed to read here, but it may compendiously be stated that the one whom we revere as the Father of the Nation, Mr. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, was instrumental in permanently ruining whatever little was left of the relationship between the Hindu and Muslim communities. Suffice it to say that the Hindus were used as pawns for an endeavour that had nothing to do with Indian nationalism and when they were hounded after the endeavour failed to fructify, the stalwarts of our freedom struggle maintained a studious silence on it.

It is thus evident that the propitiation of the Muslims at the cost of the Hindus was an established phenomenon back then. Dr. Ambedkar had presciently noted it over seven decades ago. Write thus did Dr. Ambedkar:

The first thing which the Congress has failed to realize is that there is a difference between appeasement and settlement, and that the difference is an essential one. Appeasement means buying off the aggressor by conniving at his acts of murder, rape, arson and loot against innocent persons who happen for the moment to be the victims of his displeasure. On the other hand, settlement means laying down the bounds which neither party to it can transgress. Appeasement sets no limits to the demands and aspirations of the aggressor. Settlement does. The second thing the Congress has failed to realize is that the policy of concession has increased Muslim aggressiveness, and what is worse, Muslims interpret these concessions as a sign of defeatism on the part of the Hindus and the absence of the will to resist. This policy of appeasement will involve the Hindus in the same fearful situation in which the Allies found themselves as a result of the policy of appeasement which they adopted towards Hitler.

As Dr. Anand Ranganathan presciently notes, mainstream historians may either ignore the incisive analysis by Ambedkar, or hunt in vain for a context in which Ambedkar may have written so. When the text refuses to make sense, rake up the context. Wedded as they are to the school of Leftism — a pernicious manifestation of cultural Marxism intent on the disempowerment of cultural institutions and heritage — they find it beneficial to form an unholy alliance with radical Islamism in order to achieve their goal of keeping suppressed a sense of indubitable cultural unity among the masses. Thus, they shall raise a pandemonium against the slightest indictment of the Muslim community perceived by them as pejorative to the Muslims, in their beholden endeavour to defend them with a tenacity that may well surpass the Muslims’ own enthusiasm in defending themselves. In Dr. Ranganathan’s own words:

The psychoanalysis of the Indian Muslim by Ambedkar is unquestionably deeply hurtful to those on the Left who have appropriated him. How they wish he had never written such things! They try their best to dismiss his writings on Islam and Muslims by taking refuge in the time-tested excuse of “context”. That’s right. Whenever text troubles you, rake up its context. Bring in the grey. Except that in the case of Ambedkar, this excuse falls flat. Ambedkar’s views on Islam — in a book with fourteen chapters that deal almost entirely with Muslims, the Muslim psyche, and the Muslim Condition — are stand-alone statements robustly supported with quotes and teachings of scholars, Muslim leaders, and academics. To him, these are maxims. He isn’t writing fiction. The context is superfluous; in fact, it is non-existent.

Notwithstanding the clear responsibility of Islamism for the sanguinary Partition, the Hindus were expected to merely have faith in the patriotism of Muslims who had stayed back in India now that it was independent. In all fairness to the Muslims, the patriotic among them must also have had feared the prospect of living in India in those days of rampant communalism where they could have been construed as responsible for the Partition and thus subjected to attacks. The government, as opposed to facilitating a comprehensive dialogue between the two communities, sought suppression of traumatic memories of the past and march on the path of economic progress as if nothing had happened. As historian Dr. Vikram Sampath aptly notes, such suppression is bound to transmogrify into a temporarily controlled wound that eventually festers, develops pus and proves further detrimental. An individual may forget the memories and move on, but it is impolitic to expect communities to do the same.

An ideal comprehensive dialogue between the Hindus and the Muslims would have included, inter alia, the following:

• free and honest admission of wrongful action by both sides;
• negotiation for the resolution of conflicting religious beliefs;
• firm commitment to national interest and identity over religion;
• firm commitment to secularism in public life;
• an agreement to work together for the future of India.

None of this was ever planned. The perturbing result thereof was the co-existence of communities compelled by circumstances to live with one another, each harbouring profound suspicion about the other. On the exterior, it may have seemed as if both communities lived in harmony, especially by means of government propaganda through radio and television as well as contortion of history. Nevertheless, no amount of suppression could possibly have erased the memories ingrained deep within community consciousness. Dilution cannot be equated to erasure. Sooner or later, the latent sentiment was bound to have erupted.

The repression of such memories is not the only major error wherefor the Indian State is responsible. The subtle effacement of the sacrifices of revolutionaries who chose the path of armed rebellion is yet another crime wherefor it is responsible. Under no rationale could the trivialization of the constitutionalist struggle by the Congress be sought, for it was the collated intellectual corpus of the Congress that was instrumental in the continuation of government structures left intact, whereby the possibly arduous task of building a form of government anew was not necessitated. Equally significant is the axiomatic truth that mass support is easier sought for a non-violent struggle as opposed to a revolutionary struggle. The notions of an entire nation resorting to arms and massacring the colonialists are but utopian and impracticable. In addition to the obvious fact of having already been divided along several lines by the British, there is another factor that could have caused mass unwillingness to undertake armed rebellion.

For all his paradisaical fantasies of a classless and stateless communist society, Karl Marx was indeed right about the fact that economics was the base of all else. An economically devastated man can hardly be expected to appreciate long-term advantages of his nation’s sovereignty, for his chief concern is sustenance at a fundamental level. So long as he cannot feed his family today, he shall care not who governs his country tomorrow. The British had indubitably wrecked the economy of India by means of its exploitation. Having rendered most of the masses penurious and divided along caste and religious lines, it would be inane of an individual to expect them to resort to armed rebellion. The natural solution would have been an alternative to armed rebellion. Mr. Gandhi was certainly successful insomuch that he was also able to bring the poor masses into his mass consolidation — truly an arduous task.

What defies all reason, however, is the contention that Mr. Gandhi won us freedom. Bipan Chandra et al may like to derisively dismiss the crucial role played by the naval mutiny and subsequent mutiny in the army, but the book “Bose or Gandhi: Who Got India Her Freedom?” by Major General G.D. Bakshi, replete with declassified letters written by top-ranking British officials to one another, clearly evinces the terror felt by the British at that incident.

What must further be noted is George Orwell’s observation: “Those who ‘abjure’ violence can do so only because others are committing violence on their behalf.” Gandhi could afford to abstain from violence because there were other great men who had embraced violence for the cause of Indian independence. His deification, therefore, is an abominable travesty of objectivity.

That, coupled with the concealment of the evident role of Islamism in the nation’s brutalization, may well lead one to wonder whether the designing of history in India was an intellectual endeavour dedicated to keeping India inebriated under the commitment to ahimsa to so impracticable an extent as to dilute India’s very ebullience that would be required of it in order to be a proud and mighty country with its own place at the High Table of Nations. As the eminent security analyst Abhijit Iyer-Mitra observes, the intelligentsia has always romanticized poverty and pacifism, almost as if they had too much dignity to be questioned. The brutal truth, he contends, is that poverty has no dignity. Furthermore, the lack of courage to take strong decisions — cowardice in essence — is intellectualized and portrayed as India’s commitment to ahimsa.

Historian Dr. Vikram Sampath aptly notes that the suppression of such history is bound to transmogrify into a temporarily controlled wound that eventually festers, develops pus and proves further detrimental. An individual may forget the memories and move on, but it is imprudent to expect communities to do the same. The materialization of a persecuted sense of consciousness is the precise state of affairs today. The contemporary emergence of the so-called Right-Wing in India is not a spontaneous phenomenon. It encompasses, inter alia, the advent of the internet and social media, the BJP’s steady championing of Hindutva, the scams of the Congress-led UPA government and the charisma and oratory skills of the incumbent PM Narendra Modi. Courtesy of advent of social media, the Hindus exhibit an infantine yet rising consciousness. There is a steady, dynamic process of unearthing hidden facets of history which provide indubitable evidence of India’s past valour and greatness. The Hindu community is not perfect. It has had a history of evils such as superstition, casteism and untouchability. Yet, it is impolitic of powers-that-be to ignore that social reform movements germinated in parallel with the independence movement. This resulted in a gradual effacement of these evils, thus evincing the general liberality intrinsic to the Hindus. This positive trait is hardly ever acknowledged.

Defy all reason, therefore, does the sense of alarm felt by the status-quo-ist academia at the contempt felt by a section of common Hindus for stalwarts of the freedom struggle such as Mr. Gandhi and Mr. Nehru, to so great an extent as to label them British stooges. Indeed, it is an unwarranted extrapolation, but is the academia truly so gullible as to not realize that it has, of its own accord, provided the people with the required catalyst to make such extrapolations? Mr. Gandhi and Mr. Nehru, having been depicted as infallible godsends in a monochromatic narrative in books such as those authored by Bipin Chandra et al which serve as grovelling hagiographies of the Congress, it was but natural for the sensationalist right-wing masses to make them apt targets for their suppressed frustration. Why did the academia expect the outcome to be any different? Supposing that it is as intelligent as it would have us believe, how did it catastrophically fail to understand that the Indian society is highly sentimental, as a consequence whereof, all kinds of sensational claims would be given immediate attention?

I note with interest the sanctimony that even professors in universities are accompanied with. It is of prudence to concede that no professor could possibly be true to his or her duty in failure to guide students on myriad ethics and responsibilities, the most significant of them being the emphasis that the impending future shall majestically rest on the students, when it shall be required of them to change the status-quo. That being said, even a superficial observation suffices to conclude that the professors themselves are ostensible proponents of status-quo. For have they not continued with the dissemination of wisdom conventionally accepted by the academia? Conceding that the majority of them need adhere to such conventional wisdom owing to legal obligations, they could have at bare minimum done well to encourage students to find alternative narratives in order to form a holistic opinion. No discipline other than political science and history needs such course corrections, for the same omissions and contortions as stated earlier constitute a fundamental part of these disciplines.

The Hindu stands powerless. He is tormented at the fact that the expanse of the word “Hindu” has been narrowed to the theological aspect of his culture. The jaundiced notions of secularism forbid the government and the elite to acknowledge the Hindu heritage of India. To them, it is merely another religion and must ipso facto be treated akin to Islam or Christianity. Judicial interpretations declaring Hinduism to be a way of life and not an organized religion, appear to mean little to them. The Hindu is further tormented at seeing his community riddled with caste divisions and the abominable caste-politics that has a firm grasp over Indian politics. He is tormented at seeing his community dormant and not lawfully demanding that government renounce control over temples. He is tormented at seeing caste-based reservations compound ad infinitum. Truly, there remains a trace of caste discrimination, but it is nowhere as prevalent as it was decades ago. He has developed prescience enough to discern that these reservations would only exacerbate caste differences. He grimly realizes that no government could muster the grit to cease asking for castes in official documents. He is tormented by the ebullient propagation of absurd theories of the origins of his culture, such as the Aryan Invasion Theory as described earlier, employed by vested interests to fuel separatist sentiment among the South Indians. He stands helpless against vested interests who ever so fiercely argue, “How could seventy percent of the Hindus be threatened by seventeen percent of the Muslims?” The academia has access to resources and therefore can undertake comprehensive research to examine the social vices of the Mahomedans, but shall not do so. The average Hindu lacks such access to resources. His community has little to no influence in the historically left-leaning academia. He discerns the unholy alliance between Islamism and influential left-leaning voices, but is powerless to counter them. Thus, his only defence is the collection of sporadic yet numerous incidents of violence against the Hindus by the Muslims ignored by the media, academia and intelligentsia. The same influential cabal, however, squanders not a moment to ignite communal passions in the event that Muslims are subjected to violence by the Hindus.

Armed with a complete lack of intellectual means, a Hindu responds in the only way that remains: the way of anger. It is not pathological contempt for the Muslims, but an anger that stems from helplessness. It is a reaction to the trauma of the devastation inflicted upon the Hindus for centuries. A Hindu would like nothing better than living in harmony with the Muslim and Christian fraternity. Decades of contempt from the intelligentsia and ignorance by the government has served as a propellant for suppressed emotions. This receives expression in two ways: physical violence and online harassment. With what other rationale could the contemporary popularity and almost mainstream nature of hitherto fringe groups such as Bajrang Dal, VHP, Durga Vahini etc. be explained? Such acts of anger are not to be condoned. As citizens, we must remain unequivocal proponents of law and order. Yet, so far as I am concerned, there appears little ground to invalidate my contention as to the cause of this anger among the Hindus.

The fact is that for all its delusion of being the “intelligentsia”, it failed to understand the nature of Indian society. Not that we understand its complexities any better, but that the Indian society is sensationalist, constitutes very rudimentary knowledge about the propensities of Indians. Evidently, they were not prescient enough to realize that their fabrications and omissions could keep them influential only for so long. Sooner or later, they would have lost all respect and credibility. They epically failed to understand that even in the event that their omissions were unintentional, they would be construed as fabulists of the most abominable kind. Eminent author Ashwin Sanghi once gave an apt analogy: the analogy of the pendulum, in order to explain such phenomena. The hitherto unidimensional propagation of history by the academia was akin to the act of pulling a pendulum to one extreme. The emergent mass contempt therefor was akin to the pendulum having been released from that extreme, whereby it reached the other extreme as it was wont to do. Akin to the gradual dissipation of the pendulum’s energy would be the gradual dissipation of the sensationalism of the masses. Finally, as the pendulum shall return to the position of equilibrium, so shall the masses gradually accept balanced, nuanced history as opposed to extremes of either side.

Having established that the so-called Right-Wing in India is by and large very sentimental and is prone to sensationalism, it is also significant to note that an average Hindu does not cherish the prospect of violence. Therefore, he vents his anger on cyberspace. As a consequence, it is no wonder that absurd WhatsApp drivel — such as Prime Minister Nehru’s grandfather actually being a Mughal named Ghiyasuddin Ghazi who took up the name Gangadhar Nehru in order to escape persecution from the British — finds sudden popularity.

Nevertheless, nascent as the Right Wing is, the institutions that are arising slowly yet steadily such as Sangam Talks, The Jaipur Dialogues, Arth: A Cultural Fest, Pondy Lit Fest, The Festival of Bharat et al whose narrative is rooted in India’s cultural heritage, have an incentive to stay committed to the truth. That incentive is their very survival. These institutions have voluntarily taken up the cause of repudiating the fabrications of the established and I daresay pampered academia. Ipso facto, they have no alternative to the truth. Unlike the right-wing masses who are by and large prone to sensationalism, these institutions are characterized by unfettered rationalism. The eminent personalities they invite for panel discussions or lectures such as Sanjeev Sanyal, Dr. Vikram Sampath, Abhijit Iyer-Mitra, Dr. Anand Ranganathan, Harsh Madhusudan, Rajeev Mantri, J Sai Deepak, Sanjay Dixit, Nilesh Nilkanth Oak, Dr. Manish Pandit, Sandeep Balakrishna, Anuj Dhar, Dr. David Frawley and innumerable others are all very erudite and refined personalities who have unique and profound knowledge to disseminate, rooted in historical research and indubitable scientific evidence.

A unanimous opinion prevails amongst them all: India is a civilization, surviving despite monumental attacks on it, and has every right to grow into a formidable power in its own right as an independent nation-state. No enemy, without or within, is to be tolerated. Armed uprising against the state shall be answered with formidable government force and intellectual slander against the idea of India shall be answered with a counter intellectual salvo rooted firmly in facts. Some prefer to call it patriotism. Some prefer to call it nationalism. Yet others prefer to term it “Hindutva”.

Hindutva is a school of thought, at the core of which is a sense of respect and pride for the civilizational ethos of India. It entails an acceptance of the fact that India is a continuing civilization in its own right with an identity of its own, and no amount of deliberate misinterpretation by vested interests can ever change this axiomatic fact.

One may well contend that the Right-Wing has no unanimous opinion on what Hindutva truly is. I contend that by that very fact, Hindutva is liberal and celebrates individualism. The Hindu culture has always celebrated ekam sat viprāh bahudhā vadanti — truth is one, the wise call it by many names. No form of worship is more sacrosanct than the other. Absence of worship in the traditional sense is also as liberating as is worship. It was the Hindu society that bestowed the title of a Rishi (seer) on Chārvaka, who commenced a school of thought which did not accept the authority of the Vedas. It accepted only empirical evidence, thus also rejecting the notion of a god, which is why it is an atheist school of philosophy. No other society considered atheists equal to non-atheists.

There are a few tenets on which Hindutva adherents agree, namely: (a) the caste system needs to be destroyed (b) Sanskrit needs to be revived (c) the education system needs to be reformed (d) Idealism in foreign policy needs to be replaced with pragmatism (e) India needs to shift from unceasing socialism to capitalism (f) Muslims need to be saved from the tempting Wahhabist ideologies and must be made partners. This is because such tenets are aimed at the long-term advantages to India. People may differ on micro-level points, and that is very much human.

The point I shall enumerate now could well have been illustrated earlier, yet it is of the essence that it be addressed. Courtesy of the injudicious notions of secularism with which this nation has been indoctrinated, the average youngster in contemporary India errs in equating Hindutva with organized religion, something very characteristic of urban, west-influenced, English-speaking youngsters. To do so is to engage in fallacy. The west was not philosophically and spiritually as advanced as the ancient civilization of India, save for a few cultures that eventually came to be termed “pagan”. We in India did not believe in the concept of organized religion. Yet, we were so liberal as to not force adherents of organized religions to conform to our way of life. The Parsis, the Jews, the Muslims; all found refuge in this land. The west, however, wholeheartedly embraced organized religion. It, therefore, accepted its demerits as well. Consequently, it was in sore need of an intellectual awakening and employ creative ideas of secularism (separation of state from religion). That our social system, too, deteriorated over a period of time is indisputable. However, we need not reject the past on that account as needed the west. Indian progress must rest on the affirmed foundations of culture. A reference to the term, “hardliner Hindutva stance”, is but a vestige of the firm determination to lead Hindus to a renaissance. No rationale can equate it with repression of religious minorities, for there exists no such concept in any teachings of Hindu culture.

A contention to the effect of the Indian State’s protectiveness towards Muslims owing to their minority status and therefore possible suppression by Hindus, would have been a laughable contention had it not been so exasperatingly pathetic. No number of riots between the Hindus and the Muslims could indicate an institutionalized oppression of the Muslims. The oppression of religious minorities is fundamentally an Abrahamic concept and not a Hindu concept. The history of Islam itself bears testament thereto, and it is not Islamophobic to contend as much. The orthodoxy of Christianity was of comparable proportions; however, it gradationally effaced as a consequence of the Enlightenment.

Accordingly, such heated tensions amongst the Hindus and the Muslims in India would well be categorized solely as law and order problems insofar as the government’s view is concerned. Failure to comprehend as much would be akin to the Congress’s failure to see the distinction between settlement and appeasement which was, as stated in an earlier paragraph, was presciently noted by Dr. Ambedkar.

In the notions of progress and time lies the fundamental difference between the Abrahamic and the Dharmic faiths. Progress, to Abrahamic religions, is linear and so is time. Subsequent to the Dark Ages was the period of Enlightenment. To them, there is birth, life, death and judgment day. Progress, to us, is cyclical and so is time (refer to the Kālachakra or Wheel of Time). Hindu philosophy looks at complementary opposites such as creation and destruction, glee and gloom, life and death as cyclical. Accordingly, our society has seen the egalitarianism and peak of the Sarasvati Civilization, the medieval deterioration, and modern ascension. While progress to the west was a negation of many if not most of its religious tenets, progress to India is the negation only of medieval contortions and firm commitment to its egalitarian roots.

It is to be remembered that the Hindu culture celebrates capitalism. Not only is it evinced by the fact that we worship the goddess of wealth, Lakshmi, it is also evinced by, as Abhijit Iyer-Mitra notes, the style of economy adopted by Chandragupta Maurya with guidance from Chanakya, where the government had little to no role in business. Barring a few principles inasmuch as they serve to prevent crony capitalism, Hindutva cannot adhere to socialism. Adherence from socialism emanates from Buddhism. An incisive book by Dr. Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar titled, “Buddha or Karl Marx” contrasts the communism between Buddhism and Marxism. Whereas the former is peaceful and focuses on nirvāna, the latter depends on an overthrow of the bourgeoisie and expects, quite paradisaically, that there would be a classless society. So far as Buddhist philosophies are concerned, their potential to serve as strong foundations of peace and morality bespeak their nature of being indispensable assets. Yet, they do not serve as foundations of good economics. I had stated in an earlier paragraph that the Hindu society was collectivist by nature. This was not always so, but only a later contortion when the individual was made subservient to irrational casteist and religious norms. The ancient Hindus could find a seamless blend between individualism and national consciousness. Later excess focus on community norms led to the subservience of the individual.

That individualism was not merely respected but was by and large the prevalent order in society is evinced by the presence of philosophies that expound the presence of consciousness — Individual consciousness (chitta) and Cosmic Consciousness (Chita), according to which a human achieves liberation when both are not only in perfect synchronization with one another, but also only if the human is able to stay in that state permanently. This is part of yoga.

Yet another evidence of individualism is the following verse from the Bhagavad Gita:

इति ते ज्ञानमाख्यातं गुह्याद्गुह्यतरं मया।
विमृश्यैतदशेषेण यथेच्छसि तथा कुरु।।
TRANSLATION: Thus has this knowledge more secret than all secrets been explained by me. Ponder over it deeply, and then do as you wish.

The essence of the verse is self-explanatory. A culture the collectivism whereof subordinated individual autonomy would have had decrees as opposed to encouragement to act in accordance with one’s wishes. Concomitant with it is the law of karma which, while granting autonomy to an individual, also states that he or she is responsible for the action he or she performs.

An unfortunate truth is the government’s apathy towards these intellectuals and institutions who seek to revive Hindutva. The incumbent government under Prime Minister Narendra Modi was elected to power in 2014 on the promises of major course corrections and espousal of Hindutva. Yet, it has fallen short on those promises. On certain occasions, it has shown exasperating incompetence. That, however, is not so alarming a fact as is the injudicious faith that the masses adhering to the Right-Wing have in Mr. Modi.

The foremost problem with the Modi government, as Abhijit Iyer-Mitra contends, is its unquestioning faith in the bureaucracy. Hailing as many members in the Cabinet do from humble backgrounds, they must have seen the administrative services with a sense of awe and respect. Accordingly, they suffer from a chronic inferiority complex. They forget that the bureaucrats are but generalists — their only qualification is having passed an examination that, expansive though its syllabus is, does not ensure that they have gained specialization in any of them. More often than not, they are not subject matter experts. Accordingly, we have the following errors that could have been prevented very easily:

1. The ideal policy after the terror attacks at Uri would have been regular surgical strikes against terror camps and even Pakistani military installations. Numerous defence analysts such as Major Gaurav Arya and Major General G.D. Bakshi have contended as much. However, the government ceased after conducting only one such strike in September 2016 and continued sending its inept spokespersons to continue milking the same day in and day out. Such absence of regular strikes could possibly not have been advised by military brass, which points to the possibility of bureaucratic intervention.
2. Notwithstanding that there is much to be gained from a proactive and committed Indo-U.S. partnership, the government has never considered it important to cement such a relationship. It continues with an utterly dated policy called the non-alignment, which to some analysts, was farcical even under the Nehruvian era. For instance, as Abhijit Iyer-Mitra noted in 2019, one could not claim to be non-aligned while not speaking against the Soviet Union’s invasion and occupation of Hungary and then keep criticizing the U.S. the way Krishna Menon did at platforms such as the U.N. Perchance, the bureaucrats continue endorsing non-alignment, something that is not relevant anymore. Nothing could be more exasperating than such continuation despite India having lost twenty soldiers in the recent conflict against China. A military alliance with the U.S. is of the essence, for American military technology is much superior to Chinese technology.
3. In the early hours of 26 February 2019, twelve fighter planes of the Indian Air Force bombarded a terror camp at Balakot almost sixty kilometres deep within Pakistan, killing almost 260 terrorists, and returned safely. However, the Government of India, exhibiting the lackadaisical nature typical of it, was not remotely proactive in factually repudiating Pakistan’s fabrications as regards there being no Indian action and no casualties in their country, and calling Pakistan a low-level liar. Building credibility at the international level is of utmost essence, and the Government let go of an opportunity to do so. The Ministry of External Affairs did little to be proactive on the topic.
4. Abhijit Iyer-Mitra has exposed the inefficiency concomitant with defence purchases in India on numerous occasions — a process that heavily involves the bureaucracy. For instance, none of India’s supposedly fifth-generation fighter planes (under development) focus on crucial cutting-edge technologies such as sensor integration. The Indian programme also does not seek to address the issue of the engines giving away an aircraft’s stealth, wherefore they need to be concealed deep within the aircraft’s body in a manner similar to America’s B-2 bomber. Its chief focus is the shape, which is only one of the numerous factors that make an aircraft stealthy. When such questions are posed to the bureaucrats, their standard response is, “What do you know of defence procurement? Which squadron have you served in?” conveniently forgetting that flying experience is unnecessary in the analysis of defence economics and aircraft physics. Further strange is the government’s approval of twin-engine aircraft manufacturing by agencies such as HAL, who in Abhijit’s view, have not been able to perfect LCA (Light Combat Aircraft) manufacturing, which is more rudimentary than manufacturing twin-engine fighter jets.

The Government, lamentably, accepts advice only from the bureaucrats and does not appear to solicit the opinions of think tanks.

That being the unfortunate state of affairs as regards bureaucracy, it is now expedient to examine three major sins as I view them on part of the Government.

1. The Government waited too long to comprehensively explain both the historical context and legal facet behind the enactment of the Citizenship Amendment Act. It did not respond forthwith to the prevalent anarchy over a non-issue. Lawyers such as Harish Salve and intellectuals such as Dr. Anand Ranganathan were able to defend the Act in much better a manner than the Government’s inept spokespersons could. What is exasperating and outrageous to most clear-minded Indians in general and Hindus in particular is its lack of action against, as Dr. Ranganathan described it, the island-state of Shaheen Bagh. Erroneously called a protest site, this island-state metamorphosed into a deep and dark blot on India’s reputation as a mother brought her four-month-old infant at the site who died due to exposure to cold. The mother was so bereft of shame as to declare that she would not hesitate to sacrifice her two other children for the cause. The very fact that law enforcement was not deployed in order to break the island-state effectively indicates that Prime Minister Modi colluded with the woman who, err not, effectively had her infant killed. INFANT! As Abhijit Iyer-Mitra views it, this lack of government action was a deliberate ploy by the Centre to ensure that its brain-dead devotee-base gets more angry and militant in its support for Mr. Modi as it sees the sanctimonious and verily anti-national nature of the Leftist-Islamist nexus, and votes for him yet again. It may have been electorally beneficial to Mr. Modi, but it was evilly deleterious to India. The failure to deploy law enforcement could either be construed as incompetence or as deliberate refusal keeping future electoral victories into consideration. Neither of the possibilities indicate good leadership. Short as public memory in India has often proven to be, the public has forgotten all about the loss of an innocent life, which might have been saved had the island-state been dismantled with the power of law enforcement.
2. In blatant contravention of Government orders of a lockdown in view of the Coronavirus pandemic as well as the ban on the assembly of people, the members of an Islamic missionary movement named Tablighi Jamaat began congregating in large numbers at its headquarters in Delhi called the Markaz. As Aljazeera reports, “In a 28-minute audio clip of a sermon posted on March 19 on Markaz’s YouTube channel, Jamaat chief Maulana Saad called Coronavirus an “azaab” (God’s punishment) and asked his followers to run to the mosques. He also called the assertion that people gathering in the mosque will lead to more infections as “baatil khayal” (falsehood).” His later appeals to obey government orders were too late. That alone did not exacerbate the situation. As the doctors and nurses proceeded to discharge their duties of the quarantined Tablighis, they were spat upon and harassed by the very individuals they were sent to ensure the well-being of. Across the country, there were instances of a few members of the Muslim community pelting stones at police officials ensuring the lockdown. Top officials from the Union Ministry of Home Affairs revealed to Hindustan Times that the National Security Advisor (NSA) of India himself, Mr. Ajit Doval, reached around 2.00 am on March 28–29 night at the markaz and convinced Maulana Saad to get the occupants to be tested for the Covid-19 infection and be quarantined. While the markaz allowed 167 Tablighi workers to be hospitalised on March 27, 28 and 29, it was only after the intervention of Doval that the Jamaat leadership yielded to cleaning up of the masjid. The efforts by Mr. Doval may be applauded, yet there remains a fact that everyone ignores, the opposition especially so considering that it never has India’s interests in view. India’s nuclear command structure is such that it is not the PM, but the NSA who launches India’s nuclear arsenal upon orders from the PMO. What the negotiation incident with the Tablighis reveals is that the government effectively sent India’s nuclear shield willingly into a biohazard zone! The sheer and utter shame of it! Was India even taking its nuclear security seriously? This is not how a responsible power is supposed to conduct itself! Imagine the possibility that NSA Doval might have had contracted the Coronavirus, and passed it off to the PM, which in turn could have had infected the Cabinet. Can the nation begin to imagine the horror of having the national cabinet infected? In absence of cabinet leadership, the possibility of factions emerging in the bureaucracy emerges, and no meaningful work could be ensured. It is the elected leadership that eventually ensures cohesion in the bureaucracy. One may well contend that the Tablighis would have relented to none but Mr. Doval. This only serves to cement my argument about there being a systemic malaise within India’s state apparatus that leads it to propitiate the Muslims. As Abhijit Iyer-Mitra notes, the Muslims have perfected the art of holding the government at gunpoint. It is a negotiation tactic. That the Shias do not engage in such tactics, are by and large loyal to India and that it is mostly the economically disadvantaged Sunnis who do so, is a topic for a separate discussion. The Tablighis registered FIRs against the conscious citizens who exposed them on social media, and the police was so unabashed as to accept such FIRs and act on them. Abhijit notes that when one questions the police, their helplessness could be evinced as they say, “We have no choice, sir! We do not want riots. You know not of what these people are capable of”. It is a systemic, institutional malaise. The message it sends is that law-abiders shall be punished and law-breakers incentivized.
3. When Ms. Shabana Azmi was injured, Mr. Modi forthwith tweeted his hope that she got well soon. However, just days prior to that incident, India lost seventeen CRPF soldiers in a Maoist attack. There was not a tweet from Mr. Modi. What message does this communicate? That Ms. Azmi mattered more to him than the lives of our soldiers?
4. In his first term, Mr. Modi had made an impassioned appeal to the people about living in harmony and respecting law and order when a few Muslims were lynched by gau-rakshaks, conveniently forgetting, as Abhijit noted, that those lynched were cow smugglers and very violent as well. However, Mr. Modi could not be moved enough to pen a tweet condemning the despicable manner in which two venerable Hindu saints in Palghar were handed over by the police to a mob, which beat them up and killed them.

Wherefore this selectivity? Why such insouciance towards the Hindus?

Our lamentable state of affairs is such that the opposition is supremely dysfunctional, and we choose not necessarily the best but the least bad among them all. The Hindus err in placing idolatrous faith in Mr. Modi.

Prima facie the PMO appears to micromanage all affairs and give little agency to others. To my mind, and I am prepared to stand corrected, an erudite person like Dr. Subrahmanyam Jaishankar could not have decided on non-alignment even as we lost twenty soldiers, unless the PMO may have ordered as such.

Placing the overarching foundations of Hindutva on one man shall prove truly detrimental to the very cause of Hindutva. Supposing that Mr. Modi is perfect, what next? He shall not permanently lead India. Sooner or later, he would retire. Who after Modi? The BJP must create competitive candidates. There also need be created alternatives to the BJP insofar as Hindutva is concerned.

I have imagined a conversation between me and an individual wedded fiercely to conventional academic indoctrination:

Me: There are civilizational threats to the Hindu society and India. Rajiv Malhotra and Aravindan Neelakandan’s book “Breaking India” makes it alarmingly lucid.

The Other: This is merely a brawl amongst religions. We must look forward and not cling to our past.

Me: If you are so forward-looking, you must surely possess the foresight to understand that this civilizational battle is a battle of ideologies. These global threats to the Hindus also provide intellectual cover for the Naxalites. Surely, you are far-sighted enough to understand that employing paramilitary force can merely reduce their manpower but not weed out their ideology. Surely, you possess logic enough to understand that only a potent ideology can counter another ideology. So, that is what Hindutva seeks to achieve: a potent ideology against these pernicious forces. I do not see the reason for controversy!

The Other: But what if there is truth in what these “pernicious forces” propagate?

Me: But what if there is truth in what I say? The ancients said that there is one truth but the wise call it by many names. That our egalitarian society did deteriorate is truth. But that the same society produced reformers is also truth. The question is, “Which truth is most apt in the circumstances?” Is it not the truth that the present-day society is one of sovereign nation-states? If yes, why is it that foreigners are so interested in eradication of social evils in India? Do they believe that Indians cannot do so themselves? If so, how did India produce men like Jyotirao Phule and Ambedkar?

The Other: But Ambedkar was enlightened by education abroad, and he attacked Hinduism throughout his life.

Me: But Ambedkar did not need education abroad to understand that the caste system was evil. He understood it since his childhood. He received education to equip himself with the skills to emancipate the depressed classes. Also, that he attacked Hinduism is not in dispute. But if he was such an avowed hater of Hinduism as a whole and not merely the evils thereof, how is it that his biography by Dhananjay Keer mentions Ambedkar using examples from the Mahabharata to motivate the depressed classes in his speeches? Modern Hindutva also seeks a total eradication of the caste system the way he did. Do you see why proponents of Hindutva revere Ambedkar?

The Other: But that amounts to his appropriation!

Me: The idea most dear to Hindutva is the cultural unity of India. Ambedkar reiterated the same. In his paper that he presented at the Columbia University, he details out the cultural unity of India. According to him, India possessed a “deeper and a much more fundamental unity — the indubitable cultural unity that covers the land from end to end.” He says that spirituality is the binding fabric of this nation. What is it that proponents of Hindutva say that is radically different from this? That he did not hate adherents of Hindu consolidation is proven by the fact that he appointed a man affiliated with the RSS as his election agent. Also, how is it that Ambedkar recommended that Upanishads could be looked to for democratic principles? He wrote: “To support democracy because we are all children of God is a very weak foundation for democracy to rest on. That is why democracy is so shaky wherever it made to rest on such a foundation. But to recognize and realize that you and I are parts of the same cosmic principle leaves room for no other theory of associated life except democracy. It does not merely preach democracy. It makes democracy an obligation of one and all.” Much as you may not want to admit, Ambedkar’s thoughts are in near-perfect conformity with modern Hindutva.

The Other: But Ambedkar clearly did not share the views of Hindutva proponents so far as the divinity of cow is concerned.

Me: Savarkar, too, did not share it. A cow being divine is a theological construct. I think I have made it clear that modern Hindutva is about considering cow a utilitarian animal and not a divine one, and that it is not confined to theology. Hindus themselves are divided and do not share a unanimous view on the topic. Again, I see no reason controversy.

The Other: But what about his statements about Hinduism not being in conformity in democracy and other such bitter remarks by him?

Me: He was right. Hinduism, deteriorated by the caste system, could never adapt itself to democracy. Modern Hindutva seeks to eradicate the evils. I again see no reason for controversy.

The Other: But declaring India a Hindu Rashtra would be unconstitutional, because Article 1 of the Constitution begins with “India, that is Bharat” and the Preamble states that it shall be a secular nation. Theocracy can never co-exist with secularism.

Me: Who said that Hindu Rashtra would be a theocratic state? Did anyone ever say that Hinduism would be the state religion of such a Rashtra? Do any of the intellectual proponents of Hindutva say so? Do not include inconsequential statements from an MLA here or an MLA there, for such would be innately political with little substance. The question is, “has any such intent been shown by the government?” Was not one of the earliest decisions by the Narendra Modi 2.0 government pertinent to minority welfare? Did I not say that Hindutva is not solely about theology, and that worship is an individual choice? Why would then proponents of Hindutva ever amend the basic structure of the Constitution? Hindu Rashtra is merely an ideal.

The Other: But what about the fact that it may alienate other communities?

Me: If it is so alienating to other communities, how is it that intellectuals like Shehzad Poonawalla sympathize with the Hindus? How is it that Arif Mohammad Khan sympathizes with the Hindus? It may be a start and a feeble one at that, but should this trend continue, I see no reason why Muslims would not support this endeavour. The same applies to Christians. Look at Savio Rodrigues, the founder and editor-in-chief of the Goa Chronicle. Again, a feeble start probably, but a start nonetheless.

The Other: Another question. We know that Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj was a very secular king. He had Muslims serving in his army. Why is it that Hindutva proponents have appropriated him as a Hindutva icon?

Me: Well? Is it not a fact that he fought against the imposition of Islam by the Mughals? Did he fight merely for freeing India from the Mughal rule? The Marathas also liberated temples from the Islamic yoke. Also remember that the principle he fought for was Hindavi Swarajya, which literally translates to Hindu self-rule. True that he did not mean it exclusively for Hindus. Now, merely because Muslims served in his army, he did not introduce Muslim reservation for propitiation. These are the precise principles of the proponents of Hindutva today. Their conception of India is not based on religion, but on culture. And culture is more than theology. Their motto is, “development for all, appeasement to none.” They, too, are not in favour of theological diktats, if any, guiding affairs of the State. No wonder they find Shivaji very close to their conception. Again, I see no reason for controversy.

In an extraordinary book written by Barbara W. Tuchman titled “A Distant Mirror: The Calamitous Fourteenth Century”, the proclivity of ossified societies to look to the past for validation was explored. Abhijit Iyer-Mitra referred to the same in a podcast, wherein he stated that excessive emphasis on the past was an indicator of a society in economic decline. Thus do become commonplace the longing thoughts of, “If only we had Rām Rajya, India would have been better” or “If only the good old Rashidun Caliphate under the first four caliphs had been there, the Arab world would have been much better than the way it is”. Societies that are economically vibrant invariably look to the future.

Having read my encomiums of the Sarasvati Civilization, some readers may manifestly be compelled to construe me as a person having fallen prey to the aforesaid unnamed syndrome. They may also construe Indian society as having fallen prey to the same which would be a profound indicator of India being currently in an economic decline. While the apprehensions as regards India as a whole are truly warranted in that there exists a significant section of Hindus that keeps thinking longingly of a great past as opposed to proactively thinking of the future, I assure the readers of my immunity to the same. I am no dreamer who seeks a replication of the Sarasvati Civilization. I merely enumerated the absence of abhorrent discriminatory practices in the ancient era, as evidenced by Dr. Ambedkar’s scholarly book, “Who were the Shudras?” I merely happen to endorse incorporation of some such principles from the past. I have no hesitation in admitting to my nature of being a veritable modernist snob. I view in contempt the society’s inability to accept radical yet necessary changes, such as the complete annihilation of the caste system. I go so far as to accuse the Indian State of creating an atmosphere conducive to the proliferation of casteism in society. I should have cherished nothing better than spirited privatization and urbanization, transcending the fetters of the past. I had once been inclined towards militant atheism and state-forced progress of society. To the earlier me, the desecration of places of worship such as temples, mosques and churches as well as old forts and palaces would have been fair game in the aggressive endeavour to build centres of economic activity and industry.

Words fall short of my gratitude to such of those intellectuals who made manifest the necessity of preserving cultural heritage. Their influence significantly shaped my understanding of society. I remain an unequivocal proponent of capitalism and scientific progress. Yet, I would now be unwilling to sacrifice the memories of historical injustices and the truth of cultural heritage at the altar of injudicious progress that would be extremely dismissive of the past, which could inflict further trauma on Indian society.

And it is here that the connection between economics and historical facts manifests. Economic progress is a reality that transcends geographical boundaries. Akin to transverse waves, however, is the graph of economic progress with its own crests and troughs. Periods of low economic growth are conducive not merely to law and order problems, but also to nationally more profound wars over the narratives of the past. Bereft as India was of the truths of its past, the extant periods of low economic growth are extremely conducive to heated contentions between the Hindus and the Muslims. For outraging on past realities is but misdirected frustration that owes its provenience to pecuniary helplessness. Yet, the culpability cannot rest on the Hindus for feeling cheated by the academia. Had the Hindus and the Muslims negotiated using the five points mentioned in an earlier paragraph in the earliest years of our independence, the reasons for contentions would have, at least in theory, reduced.

The anger of the Hindus need be channelized in the appropriate direction, wherefor it would be of the essence to invest in human capital. That can only be ensured by means of a holistic education system that seamlessly integrates physical sciences, culture, language, mathematics and economics. Granted that I have merely stated a vision-of-sorts and no mechanism to ensure its implementation. However, I happen to think the government could not overhaul the education system to so great an extent. While the government’s introduction of a new education policy certainly appears an attempt at modernizing India’s education system, the principal effort at ensuring a strong cultural resurgence could only be undertaken by private institutions and their collaboration with schools and universities.

It is in consonance with the principles of objectivity and truth to admit that notwithstanding their superior numbers, the situation of the Hindus is not good. Their sensational nature need be diluted by means of appropriate guidance, and other religious communities need be integrated into the mainstream to the greatest extent possible.

At present, the situation appears bereft of hope. Yet, efforts at reconciliation must be undertaken. Perhaps, the innocence and forthrightness of childhood, when we fraternized with fellow children not so much as knowing the concept of religion, may continue well into later in life despite awareness of such distinct identities. Perhaps, as opposed to suspicion and insecurity, an adherent of one religion may behold an adherent of another with a genuine sentiment of humanity. For who is to say that the endeavour of reconciliation never bears fruit?

I must now take leave of you after completing an enervating lecture. I submit my sincerest apologies should I have so intoned as to appear excessively erudite or omniscient. To err is to be human, and the twenty-one-year-old that I am is certainly prone to errors. I do, however, endeavour my best to learn from them. In the event that it leads even one individual to exhibit greater compassion with regard to the emergent Right Wing in India, this lecture would have served its purpose. For who but conscientious citizens shall ponder upon a nation’s providence?

कर्मण्येवाधिकारस्ते मा फलेषु कदाचन ।
मा कर्मफलहेतुर्भूर्मा ते संगोऽस्त्वकर्मणि।।
The Bhagavad Gīta 2.47

TRANSLATION: You have a right to perform your prescribed duty, but you are not entitled to the fruits of action. Never consider yourself to be the cause of the results of your activities, and never be attached to not doing your duty.