Thursday, October 27, 2016

Western Recipe to dismantle India and Hinduism

Atrocity Literature: A Western Recipe to dismantle India and Hinduism
It is high time that we take note of such propaganda wars being inflicted on India and Hinduism using Atrocity Literatures.
Mayo’s Mother India was perhaps one of the earliest attempts at creating Atrocity literature against India and Hinduism and this has continued to this day by various vested interests that are inimical to India and Hinduism.

What is Atrocity Literature?

Atrocity Literature” is a psychological warfare which the West has been using for centuries to subjugate, control, digest and ultimately destroy native cultures and civilizations.  This, when supported by media can have a devastating, long lasting and sometimes permanent effect on that target civilization/culture. It is particularly dangerous, because it makes the people of the civilization, which is being targeted; believe that those who are trying to destroy them are their saviours. The West has successfully used this against Native Americans, African Blacks, Bharath and many other places it colonized and invaded. Christian Missionaries/Church, NGO’s, Western/Indian Academic institutions, Private Western Foundations, Human/Animal Right groups, Media, and Western Governments – have all used Atrocity Literature to undermine India.
In “Breaking India”, Rajiv Malhotra describes Atrocity Literature as a “technical term referring to literature generated by Western interests with the explicit goal to show the target non-Western culture is committing atrocities on its own people, and hence in need of Western intervention”[3].  The ultimate aim of Atrocity Literature that is being produced against Bharath is to demean our culture and religion, specifically Hinduism, and ultimately destroy it. This strategy is based on a simple fact that every society, civilization, system, religion, country, community or even artificially formed communities like labour unions will have members, who do criminal acts/atrocities. This is also true with social institutions like marriage, joint family, etc.
Let me explain this using a small example. Let’s say there is a city with a population of one crore and 500 people got murdered there in the last 5 years. Obviously in a city of 1 crore there will be people from all walks of life. Also every group will have both victims and criminals. If the pre-decided narrative is to demonize tall men against short men in that city, Atrocity Literature will be created supporting this. Obviously there will be a few murders where tall men kill short. Such news gets to the media headlines immediately and will be presented as tall oppressing short. Judiciary might decide later on, that the murder/s have nothing to do with the height, but this gets almost no media coverage. The narrative of tall oppressing short gets established in the minds of the people over a period of time because of media propaganda.
So, Atrocity Literature can be used to demonize any particular community as being oppressive and discriminative towards another community, especially when such assertions have no real basis. It is difficult to understand the biases unless one goes deeper into the statistics. The worst part is, those against whom Atrocity Literature is created, tall people in the above example, themselves start believing in this narrative and a few of them will even approach those, who are trying to malign them, for help. The tall community, thus, demonized, will be finally dismantled on the pretext of saving the short. And the short people, who are portrayed as the victims, may actually be the real aggressors, who produced the Atrocity Literature to undermine the tall people. Now, replace the tall people in the example with Hinduism and short people with various Abrahamic and secular ideologies, and you will get a full picture about what is happening in Bharath.
So, a narrative is decided first and the news, which fits into this pre-decided narrative gets the coverage in the media. Add to this, those news items, which have been distorted and twisted to fit it into the pre-decided narrative

Is India the Rape Capital of the world?

Ever since Nirbhaya rape incident, there is continued coverage by both national and international media about rapes in Bharath. At a point of time, Bharath was called the rape capital of the world. A German university even rejected admission to an Indian male, citing the security of female students in the university as a reason[4]. While even a single such incident is shameful to the entire nation, we also should not forget about the reality. Here are the statistics for rape rate from 2003 – 2010 as per United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime[5].
German professor can’t be blamed. The problem is Atrocity Literature and its propagation through media, which created an image that “Indian men are rapists”, though we are lot better than several so called developed countries. This is despite our inferior judiciary and police, at least in quantity, if not quality. The rape incidents fit into the pre-decided narrative of the left-liberals and feminists that – India, especially Hindu society, is a patriarchal society and women are being oppressed.
This is an example of how data can be twisted to suit the pre-decided agenda. We are shown India as having second highest number of rapes per year, but without a reference to total population of the countries. The total population of all the other countries put together is less than 100 crores, and so less than India’s. So, the rape cases in the rest of the countries are nearly 8 times as many as India.
“Access and Equality in Higher Education: Aspects of Gender, Caste, Ethnicity, Religion, Occupation and Economic groups in Rural and Urban Areas during Pre and Post Reform Periods[6]”, a research paper, is another typical example of Atrocity Literature, which tries to portray that there is discrimination in higher education in Bharat. This is produced by Indian Institute of Dalit Studies, a NGO started with the funding of Ford Foundation[7]. Around 90% of their donations for the past 3 years are from Western institutions and missionaries/Church[8]. One of the scholars presenting the paper, Nidhi Sadana Sabharwal[9] and the current Chairman are from JNU[10]. One of the trustees Sri Martin Macwan10 is a Jesuit7 (Society of Jesus)[11] working for Dalit Christians[12].
Narratives being created around indigenous practices like Jallikattu, Kerala Temple elephants, Holi, Deepavali, Dahi Handi, Ganesh Chaturthi, Sabarimala, etc. all fall under the category of Atrocity Literature.
The modus operandi is same in each case. Choose an indigenous festival or practice. Then prepare documents showing that there are atrocities and then demand for a ban. Take the example of Jallikattu, where you have a large number of bulls participating in the event. It is obvious that there may be a few incidents of mistreatment of bulls. But, this cannot be a justification for a blanket ban on the entire event. It is like asking for a ban on travelling because of accidents. The solution is reform and tight monitoring and not ban. The real objective behind all the outrage is to distance the Hindus from their culture and tradition, so that they can be easily converted[13].

Same news can fit into different narratives

Several times a pre-decided narrative decides how a particular news is presented. Let us consider one recent incident.
Actual News: A person, who happens to be the husband of a patient, hits a nurse in a hospital[14].
News with all the tags attached: Paramjit Singh, a leader of Akali Dal Punjab, hits a nurse, who is pregnant for not being given preferential treatment in a private hospital
Probable Narratives-
  1. Akali Dal suppressing females
  2. Punjab is unsafe for women
  3. Nurses under attack
  4. Another pregnant women attacked in India/Punjab
  5. Staff of a private nursing home attacked again
More such narratives can be constructed based on caste, religion, skin colour, region where the incident happened, etc.
It is high time that we take note of such propaganda wars being inflicted on India and Hinduism using Atrocity Literatures and take proper measures to counter it.


Sunday, October 16, 2016

India before the British Conquest

Many Indians in the past and even in the present justify the country’s subjugation by the British as a blessing in disguise, stating that Colonialism was the best thing that could have happened to India.

India is a living civilization. No other nation has a continuance of philosophies, rituals, cultures and traditions in the manner in which India has it. Even after thousands of years, of which there were centuries of wars, invasions, enslavement, mass killings, poverty, starvation and relentless attacks by foreign ideologies, what we have achieved as a nation is remarkable.

But, any country which has gone through alien rule for centuries will struggle to find a deserving place for itself among the community of nations. Any foreign domination for so long would scar the minds of the victims so deeply that it almost always translates into an “inferiority complex” or a kind of “identity crisis” among the ruled; compelling them to somehow live up to the rulers’ expectations and to mimic them.India has been no exception to this phenomenon. Our own people during the British Raj (and even today) justified India’s subjugation by foreigners as a blessing in disguise, by declaring with great pompousness that Colonialism was the best thing that could have happened to India. They argued that the British (just like their previous counterparts) were liberators and not subjugators- liberators from Brahminism, caste hierarchy, superstitions, backwardness and many more evils.

This feeling has not lost its popularity even today and this is what we know about our history in the popular culture. We as a nation have developed a fondness in eulogizing our conquerors and ignoring or even blatantly dis-respecting our own people and their achievements. This in fact has translated into our actions in many fields and one such important field is the writing of the Indian history.
For instance, it is vastly believed among our ‘intellectuals’ and ‘mainstream historians’ that the arrival of Islam into mainland India was mainly due to the change of opinion among the masses, who favored the ‘equality’ in Islam for the ‘oppression’ of the Hindu caste system. They vehemently argue that India was invaded by a “few thousand” men, who were able to succeed, because Hindus lacked unity among themselves, and the lower-castes were unwilling to defend their country and their upper-caste kings. But, a thorough examination of the primary sources reveals that there is no truth in these assertions.

First, the invading armies were not comprised of only a “few thousand men”. When Mamud of Ghazni attacked the Somnath temple in 1000 CE, for example, he employed a fleet of 30,000 camels only to carry water supplies, informs KS Lal, a reputed historian of the medeival period. When Mahmod Ghori attacked North India in 1192 CE, he had 120,000 men in cavalry alone! Later Islamic rulers had stronger armies: Alauddin Khilji had 475,000 horsemen and Mohammad Tughlaq had 900,000 of them under his command. [Koenraad Elst]. These Islamic invaders, however, succeeded after facing a strong and successful resistance set up by the Indian rulers over a vast period of 5 centuries.

Second, the social structure aspect of India was not that dim either. Many Islamic writers of that time like Alberuni, Abul Fazl, Jahangir, etc. have not once mentioned the supposed tyranny of the Hindu caste system as a reason for gaining converts to Islam. Moreover, not a single instance of the so called lower classes, making common cause with the invaders can be noted. On the contrary, many examples of lower castes fighting side by side with the upper caste kings are available. Many examples of Shudra dynasties protecting the Brahmins from the invaders can also be seen [ibid]. However, these aspects of unity and harmony within Hindu society are almost always ignored and the main reason for the Islamic invasions is always projected to be social factors, rather than the religious and the military factors.

These types of “myths” are numerous in number and still vastly held as ultimate truths. All these only confirm a need for us to view our history through more neutral means than to follow what our conquerors wanted us to believe. This article is a small attempt in that regard.

Now, considering India’s written history (“secular history”), we find evidence of Indian lifestyle from the Greek records. Many Greek writers have travelled to India and have recorded their experiences of this land. One such Greek writer was Megasthenes (320 BC-290 BC), who was the Greek ambassador to the Mauryan Empire, during the period of Chandragupta Maurya. In his work “Indica/Indika”, Megasthenes explains what he had seen first-hand in India during his stay in the country [Though the original work is not available, a small portion of the book is re-constructed on the basis of direct quotes of his work by other ancient Greek writers].

Then, we have, Hiuen Tsang (602-664 CCE), who in his SI-YU-KI (The history of the western world), explains in detail his experiences from his long travels (almost 15 years) through many places in India. Later, Fra Paolino Da Bartolomeo (1748-1806), an Austrian-born Carmelite missionary and orientalist, who was in India from 1776-1789,narrates his experiences of India in his “Voyages to East Indies” (published in England in 1880). All these accounts are first-hand and can be considered neutral. Though non-exhaustive, these accounts will surely give us profound insights and a bird’s eye view into the ancient and medieval Indian societies. Based on these accounts, the following points can be considered.

People and society

In ancient India, when Megasthenes was writing his Indica, people were generally healthy and fit and pursued various arts and skills. This is often attributed to the abundance of the means of sustenance, pure air and the availability of fresh and the finest drinking water. The land was very fertile bearing various kinds of crops, plants and trees. Various metals, including copper, iron, gold and silver, were extensively mined to make ornaments, jewellery, weapons, shields and other articles of use.

There were cities, well-built houses, different types of clothes and fashion, etc. Famines and its disastrous effects were unheard of due to proper preparations to face such situations and also because of the immunity enjoyed by the farmers and their crops from harassments, even during the times of bloody raging wars (This is in conformity with the rules laid out in the Yuddha Sashtra about not hurting common men and their property during the times of war).

The social structure of the time constituted seven castes, but without any gradation or oppression (at least in the accounts of Megasthenes). Further, the then Indian society had no slaves and the freedom of individuals was respected. It was believed that all Indians, though of different cultures and traditions, were indigenous to India, and India was never invaded by any other people (This point also goes to show how the idea of indigenousness of all Indians is not a new construct of the nationalists, but had prevailed in ancient India too).

All these indicate to a well-established and well-functioning society, which must have flourished over a long period of time to reach this state, during Megasthenes’ times.
However, by the time of Hiuen Tsang, who wrote his account in the 7th century, the social structure appears to have become slightly rigid, with strict divisions between various castes in styles and behaviours. But, despite this rigidness, no instance of oppression, harassment or conflict among the different castes can be found.

There were well planned cities with proper compounds, watch towers and roads. The houses were built of wood, which were covered with coatings of lime and mortar (a sort of binding paste comparable to modern day cement) and sometimes covered with tiles. They also had balconies and belvederes and were decorated with cow-dung (for purity) and with various patterns of flowers. A special type of multi-storeyed buildings called the “sangharamas” (may be a kind of temple or a place for monks) were built with extra-ordinary skills using intricate designs and decorations like paints and suitable ornaments.

Various materials like cotton, silk, hemp, wool etc. were used in clothing and fashion. People mostly wore fresh-white garments, whose description resembles the style of Dhoti for men. Women, on the other hand, covered their shoulders with a robe falling down to the ground. Usually, people wore a crown /cap on their heads, flower wreaths and other jewelled ornaments. Some people also wore sandals, decorated their hairs in different styles and ornamented their noses. However, the royalty and the ministers used various ornaments like necklace, bracelets, head gears decorated with gems and various styles of garments.

The above features strongly suggest the presence of a flourishing textile and ornament industry. It also gives an impression that the people were well dressed and well-mannered. Moreover, it can be seen that the people were very particular in their personal hygiene. Various practices were followed to maintain cleanliness like washing the hands before partaking the food and cleaning the mouth and teeth after having food, not eating the stale food, multiple bathing in a day, rubbing & polishing utensils (made of gold, silver and iron) used for cooking and eating purposes, proper cleaning after finishing calls of nature, and using perfumes of sandalwood and turmeric.

These were indeed very progressive practices, when compared to hygiene conditions in other areas of the world, especially the situation in Europe of those times. In the early periods of the church, bodily cleanliness was perceived as a symbol of luxury, materialism, and paganism. It is often said that Europe during the middle ages, went a thousand years without a bath, which obviously is an exaggeration, but nevertheless depicts the prevalent disregard for hygiene.

Another important aspect of the society was the functioning of the army. The art of warfare was usually taught to children (in their early age itself) by their parents and only the strongest and bravest were inducted into the military service. There were four divisions of the army viz. infantry, cavalry, chariots and elephants. The weapons used included among other things: sharp spurs (fixed to the tusks of elephants), armours for war elephants and horses, long spears, big shields, spears, bows and arrows, sabres, battle-axes, lances, halberds, long javelins and various kinds of slings, etc. The extensive use of various kinds of weapons not only points towards the presence of a well-trained professional army, but also towards the presence of thriving defence industry, which engaged in production of various chariots, metal weapons, shields and armours.

Similarly, extensive accounts about the flora and fauna; various drinks, dishes and refreshments used by the people; law and order mechanism; judicial, financial, and administrative institutions; medical practice; arts and crafts; trade and commerce; tax structure and wages for labour, and record keeping, can be found, which goes to show how the society was very large, diverse, and well-functioning, in the 7th century.

However, by the time of Bartolomeo (who visited in the 18th century), it appears that the peoples’ general welfare had vastly deteriorated and very rigid caste distinctions had cropped up, largely due to being exposed to repeated invasions and conquests by the Islamic rulers. Confirming this that the Indian society had seen a great decline, since the native kings were expelled by the foreign conquerors, Bartolomeo writes: “…Before that period, the different kingdoms were in a flourishing condition; the laws were respected, and justice and civil order prevailed: but, unfortunately, at present everything in many of the provinces must give way to absolute authority and despotic sway.” [Bartolomeo]


Though, no description of the education system can be found in the available parts of Indica, both Tsang and Bartolomeo attest to the presence of a well-established education system in pre-British India. Moreover, Bartolomeo, while describing the way Indian kids learn reading and writing (writing the alphabets by a finger or a stick, on sand or paper, while simultaneously pronouncing its sound), comments that the practice was used, since the times of Megasthenes (It should also be noted that according to Lieutenant General Alexander Walker, the process was borrowed from India by the Europeans). Tsang also informs us that the children before age 7 were taught the book of twelve chapters (siddhavastu). Later they were taught five vidyas viz.

Shabdavidya- Deals with language and grammar
Silpasthanavidya- Deals with arts, mechanics, calendars and also explains the principles of various components of the nature such as fire, water, darkness, coldness, etc.
Chikitsavidya- Deals with medical practice and treatment.
Hetuvidya- Deals with logic and causality.

Adhyatmavidya- Deals with theology and spirituality.

Tsang, additionally, states that the Brahmanas studied the Vedas and Shastras and thus, indicating that the previously mentioned five vidyas were perhaps taught to everybody, irrespective of their caste or social standing. Otherwise, the author would have stated that the Brahmanas were the only class allowed to learn anything and the need for a distinct and specific mention was unnecessary.

Further, Bartolomeo tells us that the education system had suffered (like other aspects of the society) much after foreign conquerors had expelled the native kings. Despite this, Bartolomeo tells us that reading, writing, grammar, accounts and oratory were taught. Additionally, the following subjects were also taught to the children: Poetry (Gavya); Fencing (Payatta); Botany and medicine (Vaydyassastra or Bheszagiashastra), Navigation (Naushastra), use of the spear on foot (Hastiludium), art of playing at ball (Pandacali), Chess (Ciudarangam), Tennis (Coladi), Logic (Tarkashastra), Astrology (Giodisha), Law (Svadhyaya), Silence (Mauna). [Interestingly, it is mentioned in the notes given to the work of Bartolomeo by Johann Reinhold Forster (1729-98), a Scottish historian and naturalist that Pythagoras must have borrowed his philosophy in part from the Indian Philosophers in the account of stark similarities between the Indian art of silence and other rules like celibacy, which Pythagoras also asked his disciples to follow.]

Moreover, the Indian education was very cheap and affordable compared with the then system in Europe and also gave a fair opportunity to the students in selecting what subject they wanted to pursue rather than treating all of them as homogeneous entities destined to achieve a single goal.
Furthermore, many British authorities had surveyed the situation of the education sector in various parts of India during the early 19th century. Accordingly:

In Madras Presidency, there were 12,498 schools for a population  of 12.85 million, teaching 188,650 students. There was 1 school for every 1,000 people and taking into account homeschooling, which was also widely prevalent, the ratio would have been much lower [Sir Thomas Munro, as quoted by Dharampal].

In Bengal and Bihar, most village had a school before 1800 CE. During the surveying period, 100,000 villages out of 150,748 had schools. Each of the 18 districts of Bengal had 100 institutes of higher education teaching almost 10,800 scholars [William Adam].
In Natoore Thana of Rajashahy district, there were 27 elementary schools teaching 262 students and 38 higher education institutes teaching 397 students. Out of 30,028 families, children of 1,588 families received home tutions. [ibid]
In 20 Thanas out of 37 surveyed in Murshidabad, there were 1,098 Bengali, 375 Hindi, 353 Sanskrit, 694 Persian, 31 Arabic, 8 English, 6 girls only and 1 infants only schools. [ibid]

Extensive research was also conducted in Punjab and Bombay presidency and the situations there were similar. All subjects stated before were taught and some institutes also taught arts and music. An important point of consideration is that both teachers and students were drawn from all castes. In some places (some of which were considered as places of hardcore “Brahamanism”), the number of teachers and students coming from the lower castes greatly outnumbered those from the upper castes.
Though, widespread illiteracy was recorded, and though, it partly reflected ground reality, the major factor behind such a recording appears to be the fact that a large number of young boys and most young girls were tutored at home. What is important to note is that Indians have a long tradition of imparting education to young children. In fact, teaching children to read and write constitutes one of the 16 mandatory religious ceremonies in a Hindu household.

A rather vivid depiction of India as found by the British when they arrived here given by J T Sunderland nicely sums up the condition of India before the British:
“…….This wealth was created by the Hindu’s vast and varied industries. Nearly, every kind of manufacture or product known to the civilized world-nearly every kind of creation of man’s brain and hand, existing anywhere, and prized either for its utility or beauty-had long, long been produced in India. India was a far greater industrial and manufacturing nation than any in Europe or than any other in Asia. Her textile goods-the fine products of her looms, in cotton, wool, linen and silk-were famous over the civilized world; so were her exquisite jewellery and her precious stones cut in every lovely form; so were her pottery, porcelains, ceramics of every kind, quality, colour  and beautiful shape; so were her fine works in metal-iron, steel, silver and gold. She had great architecture-equal in beauty to any in the world. She had great engineering works. She had great merchants, great businessmen, great bankers and financiers. Not only was she the greatest ship building nation, but she had great commerce and trade by land and sea which extended to all known civilized countries. Such was the India which the British found when they came.” [as quoted in Will Durrant]


  • Koenraad Elst, Decolonizing the Hindu Mind – Ideological Development of Hindu Revivalism. Delhi: Rupa and co, 2001

Philosopher and Economist, writing on Philosophy, History and current affairs.

Wednesday, October 12, 2016

भगवान राम को गुंडा, देवी दुर्गा को वेश्या कहने वाले ज्ञानी लोगों से बचिए

बुद्धिजीवियों के अधकचरे ज्ञान का प्रदर्शन शुरू हो चुका है जहाँ राम को ‘असली गुंडा’ और रावण को ‘मर्यादा पुरुषोत्तम’ बताया जाएगा।

ये कहा जाएगा कि कैसे रावण ने सीता को छुआ भी नहीं ब्ला-ब्ला-ब्ला जैसे कि उनका हरण उसने पार्क में साथ बैठकर दही-जलेबी खाने के लिए किया था। बाल्मीकि रामायण के उत्तरकाण्ड में रावण के ‘कामपिपासा’ का भी ज़िक्र है जब उसने एक स्त्री का (आज के शब्दों में) बलात्कार किया था, ये भी है कि अपनी ही बहन को विधवा बनाया था।

लेकिन ये सब क्यों पढ़ेगा हमारा ‘वानाबी बुद्धिजीवी’। उसको तो बस एक बात चाहिए जिससे एक, जिसने अपना हर काम मर्यादा से किया, वो बुरा दिखे, और एक, जिसने हर काम अपने हठ, दुराचार और महात्वाकांक्षा से किया वो अच्छा दिखे।

मतलब रावण का ना छूना सीता के ना कहने तक सीमित था? या फिर वही रामायण, या मानस, जो बुद्धिजीवी पढ़ नहीं पाते (और फ़ेसबुक पर ज्ञान के अथाह सागर वाले जेपेग इमेज से अपनी बात का आधार पाते हैं) वो ये कहता है कि सीता का तेज ऐसा था कि रावण उसको छू ही नहीं पाता। अब कहोगे कि ये तेज-वेज क्या होता है? वो तुम्हारे वश का नहीं है समझना।

पहले ये डिसाइड कर लो कि रामायण को इतिहास मानते हो या मायथोलॉजी। इतिहास मानते हो तो जो लिखा है उसको सही मानो। मायथोलॉजी मानते हो तो फिर इस पर वाद-विवाद कैसा। जो हुआ ही नहीं उसका सबूत क्यों माँगते हो? फिर तो जो है उसको कहानी की तरह पढ़ो और अपनी सीमित सोच के दायरे में रहकर समझो।
एक ग्रंथ में पात्रों की रचना होती है जिसे देखकर आने वाली पीढ़ी कुछ सीखे। उसमें नाम चाहे राम हो या रावण, सबकी अपनी विशेषता होती है। कोई संपूर्ण अच्छा या पूरी तरह बुरा नहीं होता। इसीलिए राम अपनी पत्नी को अग्नि परीक्षा के लिए पूछते हैं क्योंकि राम एक राजा थे और प्रजा के प्रश्नों के लिए उत्तरदायी थे। राम के राजधर्म ने उन्हें सीता से अग्निपरीक्षा लिवाई। तुम फ़ेमिनिस्ट बनोगे तो राम गलत दिखेंगे, तुम राजधर्म की दृष्टि से देखोगे तो तुम्हें पता चलेगा कि राम को सीता पर कभी संदेह नहीं था लेकिन प्रजा को भी संदेह ना हो तो राम ने एक राजा के तौर पर अग्निपरीक्षा की व्यवस्था की। उसी फ़ेमिनिस्ट को ये नहीं दिखता कि एक नारी के सम्मान के लिए राम ने रावण से युद्ध किया।

रावण प्रकांड पंडित था पर उसका ज्ञान किसी की पत्नी के हरण में गया। राम ने हर यत्न किया कि युद्ध टले लेकिन रावण अपने अहम और सामर्थ्य के गुमान में युद्धातुर था और फिर वीरगति को प्राप्त हुआ।
पहले अपने ज्ञानचक्षु, अगर हैं तो, खोलो। पहले समझो कि क्या लिखा है और क्यों लिखा है। रावण को बाल्मीकि या तुलसीदास ने अचानक से बुरा नहीं बना दिया। नाम कुछ भी होता, उसके कर्मों से वो बुरा बना। आउट ऑफ़ कॉन्टैक्स्ट लिखने की कला अधकचरे और वानाबी इंटेलेक्चुअल्स की एक अदा है। इससे पता चलता है कि उनकी स्वयं की इच्छा क्या है। हलाँकि सवर्ण और दलित वाले संवाद में वो ये भूल जाते हैं कहना कि रावण ब्राह्मण था क्योंकि वहाँ इनका परपस सॉल्व नहीं होता।

ऐसे टुच्चे, अधकचरे और वानाबी इंटेलेक्चुअल्स से बच कर रहिए। थोड़ा इन ग्रंथों को पढ़िए, इन्हें समझिए कि कहाँ क्या बोला गया है। इन चिरकुटों से भारतीय समाज को बचाइए जो ‘ऑल्टरनेटिव रीडिंग’ के नाम पर देवी दुर्गा को ‘वेश्या’ तथा ‘महिषासुर’ को प्रतापी राजा बताते फिरते हैं। जब ऑल्टरनेटिव राइटिंग ही नहीं है, तो फिर रीडिंग कहाँ से हो रही है? किसी पुराण में तो ये होता कि दुर्गा या राम ने वो किया जो कम्युनिस्ट ‘विचारक’ फैला रहे हैं। नहीं है तो इसका साफ़ मतलब है कि आपका कोई अजेंडा है घृणा फैलाने का।

इसका मतलब है कि आप अपनी व्याख्या, आज के संदर्भ में, अपने ज्ञान के आधार पर कर रहे हैं और उसका आकलन हजारों साल पहले लिखे पुराणों और ग्रंथों से कर रहे हैं जब स्थिति अलग थी, जिसका इतिहास आप मानने को तैयार नहीं होते, और आपकी तरह के आधी बुद्धि वाले थोड़े कम थे।

ऐसे बुद्धिजीवियों को जब जब मौका मिले नंगा करते रहिए। इनका उद्देश्य ना तो फेमिनिज़्म है, ना ही बेहतर समाज की स्थापना है, ना ही दलितों को उनका हक़ दिलाना है। ये दुर्गा के शस्त्र उठाने को फ़ीमेल एम्पॉवरमेंट की तरह नहीं देखेंगे, वहाँ ये अचानक से वेश्या हो जाती है और एक स्त्री को वेश्या कहे जाने पर भी फेमिनिस्ट चुप हो जाता है क्योंकि ऑल्टरनेटिव रीडिंग देने वाला ज्ञानी व्यक्ति उसका साथी है।

ये मानकर चलते हैं कि हमें बुरी बात ही बतानी है निकाल कर वो भी अपने हिसाब से। इनका उद्देश्य सारे हिन्दू प्रतीकों की हत्या है क्योंकि हिन्दुओं ने भी रामायण की जगह फ़ेसबुक के जेपेग इमेज से राम की कहानी पढ़नी शुरू कर दी है। अपने समाज को, अपने धर्म को जानिए और ये ऑल्टरनेटिव रीडिंग वाली चोरों के गिरोह से बचिए चाहे आप किसी भी धर्म के हों।

Sabahr from Blog of Mr Ajeet Bharti!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sunday, October 9, 2016

Culture war against Hindus

The foremost source of unrelenting and egregious slander against Hindus is India’s film industry, led by Bollywood. Pakistani marauders were halted at the border in 1948 and repudiated every time subsequently, but its surrogates managed to seize control of India’s film industry. The economics of film making, forbidding bona fide investment until recently, allowed the Muslim underworld and its associates to infiltrate the industry by funding it. They were able to dictate the agenda of the film industry, insinuating a thoroughly anti national ideology and institute a standing critique of all things Hindus as well as propagate blatant and slanderous lies. Producers and directors became their playthings and selected artistes found a privileged entry in exchange of reciprocal favours that included every type of venal personal degradation.

Villains of every description, from torturers, rapists, murderers and espousers of every retrograde social custom, somehow sport a tilak and worship some incomprehensibly weird Hindu deity. By contrast, the gentle Muslim neighbour or preacher or Christian priest epitomises generosity and brotherhood. Both unfailingly reach out to look after the confused Hindu facing some personal crisis and resolving some tricky problem engendered by their own absurd religious prejudices. The abandoned Hindu mother, brutally trampled underfoot by her devout Hindu mother-in-law, always finds a teaching job in a Christian school, under the mellow guidance of a mother superior. In Kollywood, Bengali society is often depicted terrorising an educated and independent Hindu girl, in love with a Muslim boy from a humble background, also in keeping with the illusory egalitarian ethos peddled by Bengal’s neutered cultural elite. There are exceptions of course, but they truly underline the contrary rule of demonization.

And ever-present are the caste ridden evil Brahmin, much the way Jews were portrayed by god fearing Christian Europe, before the Nazis resolved the problem in inimitable fashion through mass murder. In addition to the horrors of caste in Indian society, the timeless lament at the Hindu society’s mistreatment of women and a penchant for infanticide, standard fare of colonial conquerors, before they too addressed the problem through genocide and looting. Class oppression has been another favoured theme, tearfully underlined by privileged cine artistes, themselves living in stupendous luxury, the richest among them today worth in excess of US$ 750 million. Yet rarely, if ever, a whisper about the fate of women in India or indeed elsewhere under the medieval jackboot of the Shariah or the truculent determination of the faithful to extract the last pound of flesh, loudspeakers blaring the call to prayer before dawn and major thoroughfares routinely blocked during Friday prayer.

This unforgiving depiction of Hindus, their culture and history has been thoroughly imbibed by the Hindu society itself. The default of the Hindu psyche has been apology for who they are and instinctive defence of their critics as the wronged party in Indian society. The popular ideology of Bollywood has its faithful counterpart in books used in Indian schools and university curricula. They are apparently consciously designed to create self-doubt, if not subliminal self-loathing of their past, their cultural and spiritual identity. Indeed, these pedestrian texts reflexively question the very basis of Indian nationhood. Much of the work of post independent history is studiously silent on critical issues of India’s painful past, actively denunciatory of alternative perspectives and slanderous of their authors, however renowned and scholarly. Their own material is usually slyly dishonest and rarely impartial and all designed to supposedly promote communal harmony by telling blatant untruths. These morally bankrupt historians ignore the bitter travails of the entire millennia of unspeakable horrors, mass murder and slavery and point instead to the alleged evils of conquered Hindu society.

The bedrock of self-hatred, dispensed by India’s secular elites, found a powerful echo abroad that compounded the severity of the impact on Indian society. The Anglo-American and European contempt for India arose from deep-seated historical impulses and India’s reluctance to join the aggressive Western Cold War campaign against communism. The British had also held India’s Hindu elites responsible for the patriotic fervour that eventually led to their ejection from India. Its roots can be traced back to the late nineteenth century and British sponsorship of the Muslim League that culminated in the conspiratorial relationship with Mohammed Ali Jinnah almost fifty years later, to deliver the coup de grace of partition. Virtually all British social science and academic scholarship on India and, as its obverse, Pakistan, was intentionally complicit in the project to demonise India. Its potent influence can be found in their abiding hostility towards India and Hindus to this day, led by British universities, their media and its particular ubiquitous incarnation, spreading half-truths and vicious canards.

India’s refusal to join the US-led Cold War alliance played a crucial role in the West’s hostility towards India, though now waning in dramatic ways, as illustrated vividly in the recent days. In addition, Indians, unlike the Chinese, were viewed as enslaved people and unworthy of assimilation to the status of white or the honorary category accorded to some by South African apartheid. This undoubted racism informed the perceptions of the US policy makers and the British dominance of hostile scholarship on India also became the template that spread across the Atlantic. Virtually no practising Hindu is allowed to hold a major appointment in any US or British university in Hindu studies, with such positions invariably occupied by its most unsparing detractors, whether at Harvard, Chicago, Columbia or Oxbridge or London. The contrast with sympathetic and accommodating attitudes towards scholarship on Islam or China could not be more unambiguous. Thus, the absurdly traitorous Indian Leftist hostility toward their homeland and their own culture found a sympathetic intellectual terrain abroad. Both combined to institute an unholy and improbable alliance of supposed Indian anti-imperialists and its most brutal historic purveyors globally against India.
Disclaimer: The facts and opinions expressed within this article are the personal opinions of the author. IndiaFacts does not assume any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, completeness, suitability, or validity of any information in this article.