Two Letters that will never be written – Part One

Dear Former Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh ji,

I would have preferred to write this letter in Hindi, however as I suspect your ability to understand Hindi too well and the fact that the pseudo-secular elite has a condescending attitude towards my English, I have chosen to address you in the Queen’s language.

Ever since I “won” the ‘primaries’ in my party to be nominated as the Prime Ministerial candidate for 2014, I have been wanting to thank you for the immense help that you rendered through your tenures, which helped me to design, develop and deliver a ‘development based’ alternative to the voters of India.

Despite being a man of great intellect, Dr Singh, even your best friends would have to admit that your second tenure was all about being drab, dull and disastrous. Except for my candidature though.

As a Prime Minister who didn’t occupy the 7 RCR address by virtue of electoral success but more as a non-threatening alternative to the Madam herself, I fully understand the constant erosion that your authority – moral and legal – was subjected to. Of course, I have no complaints that you allowed it to happen, as it provided me with additional ammunition for my electoral success.

Now after occupying the chair vacated by you, 20 months later, I have come to understand you and your actions, a bit more, something I couldn’t have done as your political alternative.

Dr Singh,

  • I have realized that as a Prime Minister, it is impossible and indeed useless to react to everything that happens in the political spectrum. I have to come to recognize that the front yards of Prime Minister’s office is always full of people wanting to wish dirty political linen, but it will be a huge disservice to the office to either willingly participate or even be a keen bystander. I now understand as to why you didn’t react to every single political byte that ever came to your notice.

 

  • I have realized that in the musical choir of politics, a Prime Minister will always be a ‘Dholak’ – getting thumped on either side. The more illustrious pseudo-secular English media may look down upon this metaphor but I am sure you get my point. There is never ever “sufficient action” or “sufficient inaction” that can come out of a PMO that can please everyone across the political spectrum. Moving fast has it’s own detractors as well as moving slow, so as a PM, one of my significant learnings has been to never look at the speedometer.

 

  • I have realized that once electoral success is achieved, the real politicking is managing the “internal politics”. And it is a continuous process. Even if in a party like ours, we could “hive off” discontent to a ‘Marg Darshak Mandal’, the power wielded by internal adversaries is never diminished. And when the electoral success formula begins to elude, the voices get ever louder and bolder. If this can happen to me, with my Midas-touch electoral success, I can only shudder to think as to how you would have silently suffered a decade inside the political cauldron. And the stiff ‘bandgalas’ don’t help.

 

  • I have realized, – excuse the bad pun that follows – the “lok” ka sabha is easy to win, but for good “rajya”, the sabha is very different and indeed difficult. Even though, I am no stranger to parliamentary democracy, courtesy my tenure as Gujarat CM, I did imagine during my campaign that legislation isn’t something too challenging as baking a ‘dhokla’. Without the numbers in the “Upper House”, I have come to recognize the obstructionist force of the Opposition, however weakened they may be from the point of people’s mandate. So I fully appreciate your difficulties in initiating and carrying through sweeping legislative changes that will alter the course of the economy and policy making.

 

  • I have realized that every party has “Mani Shankar Aiyers” in various shapes, sizes and situations. It was politically convenient for me to be silent when my opponents were asked to be packed off to Pakistan but it is not much fun to see my own MPs becoming principal tourism mascots for ‘destination Pakistan’. When Mani took that swipe at me for being a ‘chaiwalla’, me and my campaign team were quick to ‘milk’ the opportunity (pun intended) fully, and very successfully. Even as you were out of the political race, I am sure that you were extremely apologetic about the lowering of the political discourse but were helpless. A situation that I often find myself in recently and sadly more often.

These are matters that I will never speak about, either directly or indirectly, nor would I cover it as part of my speeches in India or elsewhere. But I do want you to know, that I have begun to understand and indeed appreciate the various pressure points of your tenure as Prime Minister.

I may not be able to openly acknowledge, during my tenure as PM,  your steering of the Indian democracy, with all it’s failings and fantasies, but once it ends, I shall have nothing but admiration for you. Plus of course, I will have my own story to tell.

Yours truly,

Narendra Modi

நன்றி !

இறைவனே
நன்றி
என்னை உயிர்ப்பித்தவனே
நன்றி
அவனை அனுப்பி
என்னை வாழவைத்தாய்
நீ அனுப்பிய​ பரிசு அவன்
அவனுக்கான​
உன் திட்டங்கள்
உன் தீர்மானங்கள்
யாதென​ நானறியேன்
என் வழி அவன் வந்திருப்பினும்
உன் வழி தான் அவன் வழித்தடம்
ஆதலால்
உன் அருள் வேலை முடிந்துவிடவில்லை
வழிநடத்து
என்னையும் அவனையும்
வழிகாட்டு
என்னையும் அவனையும்
மெல்லக் குட்டியே திருத்திடு
என்னையும் அவனையும்
அவன் இன்பத்திற்கு மட்டுமேயன்றி
பிறர் துன்பம்
பிறர் துயரம்
கண்டால்
துவளாமல் உதவும்
பண்பு தா
அநீதியின் அவலம்
கண்டால்
தள்ளி நில்லாத​
துணிவு தா
ஒருவரையாவது
வாழ்வைத்திடும்
ஒரு முறையாவது
சிரிக்கவைத்திடும்
சிந்தனை பூக்க​ வைத்திடு
சிவனே உன் பெயரே
அவனுக்கு
அவனே இனி எல்லாம்
எங்களுக்கு

Quite a debut – This Unquiet Land

 

No sooner than Barkha Dutt, arguably India’s best known English electronic media journalist, announced the launch of her book, I decided to pre-order it.

Barkha along with Vikram Chandra has been one of the constant faces of NDTV anchoring their prime time shows apart from hosting the popular weekend discussions.

I have to admit that Barkha has come down several notches from the pedestal of admiration where I placed her, not just because she continues to over-amplify the “problems” of her megastar friend Shah Rukh khan.

I also have resorted, at times, to mildly trolling her on twitter, of course never abusively or distastefully, but often as a form of protesting over-generalizations about Hindutva or lack of an equally vehement condemnation of bigots of other hues. [In particular, I always cringe at her addressing Owaisi as Owaisi sahib].

But I didn’t hesitate to read her first of many books I guess, and I must say that she doesn’t disappoint.

The title didn’t reveal much about the structure of the book when it was yet to be launched ; While I expected it to be a political commentary, through her view that is, I expected it to be a little more anecdotal. But Barkha manages to keep the narrative direct without clouding it with too many personal experiences.

The staunch feminist that she is, it didn’t surprise me that the first chapter she devotes to the “plight of women” in India. The few cases that she elaborates to buttress her point about the grave injustice to women in India makes for revolting reading – It is very hard indeed to not feel ashamed as a man to think about what one’s own grandmothers and possibly even mothers had to go through. Barkha sums up the feminist argument quite succinctly when she writes that “Feminism is about Freedom”.

The next chapter “The Cost of war” covers what’s possibly the most important phase of her career – coverage of the Kargil war – that catapulted her to the pinnacle of journalistic stardom. She successfully manages to bring out the “human aspect” of Kargil war apart from the intrinsic political maneuvering between India, Pakistan, and the US.  The uncomplaining attitude – be it about their safety, equipment, and conditions – of brave soldiers of Indian army did bring a lump to my throat. I could perfectly understand the emotional response of Barkha to give her strand of beads to the soldiers.

The two chapters that chronicles the introduction, growth and the invincibility of terror in India makes for compelling reading.  Barkha is one of the very few commentators that I have come across, Tavleen Singh being the other, who acknowledges the fact that 1984 riots has been severely under reported due to the times. Contrasted with the minute-by-minute coverage of the 2002 riots, it has become the nature of India’s so called seculars to underplay the 1984 riots as some form of legitimate protest while lambasting the 2002 riots as a “state sponsored pogrom”. However, knowing her position vis-à-vis Narendra Modi, I didn’t expect her to be any less critical of the Godhra riots.

Barkha is quite unsparing in her criticism of violence – In the name of god, she’s aptly named the chapter – driven by religious divide, but I have always suspected her resolve to condemn the jihadi variant of it. As shameful as it is, the bringing down of the Babri Masjid, no commentator till date has to my knowledge condemned the act of serial blasts as a ‘response’. It is yet another quirk of Indian secularism that the “cause” of serial blasts – Babri demolition – is always discussed but not the blasts and in case of Godhra the “riots” are always discussed but never the burning of the train and the related conspiracies. Barkha fails in my view to ‘buck’ this trend.

Barkha brings out clearly her personal equations with the Gandhi family and the apparent dislike that PM Modi has for her. Surprisingly I found that her equation with the “most famous son-in-law” of the country isn’t what I thought it might be. Her descriptors for Modi and Kejriwal – Juggernaut and Maverick – while being quite appropriate also underscore her nuanced understanding of the Indian political spectrum. Full marks to her.

In the last chapter, Barkha deals with the vexed issue of “caste” in Indian society. The inhuman subjugation of Dalits is something to be extremely ashamed of, for a Hindu and an Indian. Her recounting of how a tragedy such as the Tsunami of 2004 did nothing to break the caste barriers is a stark reminder of its dominance in Indian society. Barkha though, in my view, fails to adequately chronicle the shifting sands of the caste equation ; She quotes the supremacist attitude of a Brahmin, but in reality the Dalits suffer most at the hands of the OBCs. Using the ‘Brahmin anecdote’ does capture the mindset that permeates the society but I am afraid it does not bring out the attitudes of the ‘neo-brahmins’ – the castes that have migrated socially upward and perpetrate the same treatment that they may have, once been at the receiving end of.

Barkha had a few times tweeted about the “delay” in completing her work; It actually works out in her favor as she had the opportunity to include the most recent incidents such as Dadri and intolerance in her book.  I suspect if the book had been launched, say six month earlier, the epilogue may either not be there or may have seen a different ending.

I have reserved the “Chronicle of Kashmir” for a later read, as I found it hampering my flow of reading ; the other chapters I felt were connecting to the dot and I didn’t want to change directions.

In the last 12 months or so, I have read Rajdeep Sardesai’s much touted “Elections 2014” – and now much translated too – book and Vir Sanghvi’s “Mandate” ( a book that I finished during my flight from Bangalore to Delhi). If I am forced to rank, I’d rank Barkha’s book a shade better than Vir’s work and certainly much better than Rajdeep’s.

The only mild criticism that I have is that there’s no humor in the book, I am sure she had scope for it in plenty especially in the chapter about the Gandhis, Modi and Kejriwal. The only moment that I noted was her wry comment about how the social media created “2 Kashmiri husbands” for her that she never had.

Barkha’s book has a strong heart and a strong mind and for most portions holds a mirror for all of us, Indians.

She says loud and clear through her book that it is “We the people” that make or break this wonderful country of ours, India.

 

 

வடிந்து விடு வெள்ளமே

இயற்கையை பகைத்த
முட்டாள்கள் நாங்கள்
விளை நிலங்களை விற்று தீர்த்த
வீணர்கள் நாங்கள்
ஆற்று மணல்களை அள்ளிய
திருடர்கள் நாங்கள்
காசுக்காக காவாய்களை கவனிக்காமல் விட்ட
கயவர்கள் நாங்கள்
தங்கமாகிய மரங்களை அழித்த
தரங் கெட்டவர்கள் நாங்கள்

மன்னிப்பு கோர முடியாமல்
தலை கவிழ்ந்து நிற்கிறோம்

உங்களுக்கா கருணை எனும்
உன் எக்காளம் கேட்கிறது

நமுத்து போன விரல்களால்
உன்னை வணங்க கூட இயலவில்லை

நாங்கள் விட்டொழித்த வெட்கம்
மீண்டும் வரப்போவதுமில்லை

ஆயினும்
வடிந்து விடு வெள்ளமே

எங்கள் பிள்ளைகளுக்காக
எஞ்சி இருக்கும் பறவைகளுக்காக
நாங்கள் நல்லவர்கள் என நம்பிகொண்டிருக்கும்
நாய்கள், பூனைகள் , பசுக்களுக்காக

மிச்சமிருக்கும் மனிதநேயத்தை
தக்க வைக்கவாவது
வடிந்து விடு வெள்ளமே

The SRK conundrum

Shahrukh  Khan.

This famous name invokes such reactions from Indian public ranging from women who swoon over his dimples and romantic postures, to thankful producers whose riches grow more by churning movies for NRI constituency, to those who think of him as a ‘poster boy’ of secularism and of course a section that’s mad with him for whatever he does and does not.

He is an enigma, without any doubt.

He has danced at weddings, hosted award shows, done game shows on Television and romanced numerous women without too much of running around trees.

He owns a production house, a cricket team, a beach facing bungalow and several crores in bank accounts. He endorses everything, from colas, cars, shaving cream, phones and attire.

In movies, he has stalked a woman, been a don, has coached a women’s hockey team, defused bombs, danced on top of a train, led a team in a gold heist and generally entertained a vast majority of people in India and abroad.

He dances, prances and romances.

He has slapped his director’s husband, has running duels with mega stars of his generation and invokes aura from the next generation of actors.

He is a devout Muslim but he does smoke and possibly might be drinking as well.

He also has been a very steady family man with a wife belonging to a different religious faith.

Personally speaking, I am no big fan of Shahrukh Khan, but I don’t get to decide his fate at the box office. He is successful, in fact very successful.

Despite such a diversified side to his overall personality, usually, most people are interested in boxing him into two corners – Beacon of Secularism, pride of India – or – Pakistani, anti-national who needs to prove his patriotism -.

I don’t agree with either of the assessments.

Having a successful inter-religious marriage or winning the affection of a huge section of population doesn’t by itself guarantee the ‘secular’. By the same count, he cannot be castigated as a ‘Pakistani’ or an ‘anti-national’ because he chooses to speak on some subjects.  Selectively of course.

Let me first address his naysayers.

The problem with a section of population, mostly Hindu,  is that they measure the ‘patriotism’ of a Muslim by the extent of his Pakistan bashing. Most Muslims are not known to bash Pakistan publicly or even if they do, certainly not stridently.

Islam as a religion doesn’t recognize nationalism as it structured mostly on the notion of ‘brotherhood’.  It is perhaps difficult for a Muslim to bash a country whose population shares a common faith with him.  And also because the average Muslim is too busy eking his livelihood that he has no desire to pass this “litmus test”.

Shahrukh Khan is no exception.  He is certainly pro-Pakistan when it comes to members of his industry or contracting players for his IPL team. He is perfectly entitled to and must not be castigated for his preferences.

The Constitution of India guarantees every citizen of this country freedom of speech, freedom to live and work wherever they want to.  No one should impinge upon this right of Shahrukh Khan whatever his views about Pakistan are.  The attempts to hold up his movie releases or disrupt his work otherwise are highly condemnable. It takes away whatever merit that may be there in opposing his views.

Now, to why Shahrukh isn’t exactly a beacon of Secularism as the media loves to project him.

Rabid politicians on either side of the political divide have made the singing of ‘Vande Mataram’ a communally sensitive issue. As much as a Muslim’s nationalism cannot be questioned because he doesn’t sing the ‘Vande Mataram’ , Shahrukh hasn’t come out clearly on what is his stance. Is he among the conservative elements of his community or does he resonate with the broad sentiments of his country ?

Shahrukh wrote a piece on his “Life as a Muslim in India”.  Again he has every right to do so. But he failed, in my view, to communicate clearly that he is in a ‘dialogue’ with his own country and therefore strongly rejects any unsolicited advice from those quarters which are opposed to his nation’s interest.  For all his pet peeve against those asking him to go to Pakistan, Shahrukh conveniently says nothing about the “invite” from Hafiz Saeed, not exactly an apostle of peace and secularism.

His recent interviews with couple of leading english electronic channels, hardly convinced me that he is “truly secular”. As much as the interviews coincided with his 50th birthday, they also ran parallel to the bitter elections in Bihar.

Shahrukh has always been circumspect about saying anything against those professing Muslim political exclusivity – namely the Muslim League and MIM – but he did shed his prudence,  purposefully some could argue, when he chose to add ‘fuel to the intolerance political fire’ that was raging in the country.

It is laughable for anyone to suggest that the society has suddenly become intolerant except of course if you are suggesting it for political reasons. He is well within his rights to be critical of the Govt and a party, but he cannot, call an entire nation as ‘intolerant’.  A nation that has showered him with praise, success and a huge box-office fortune.

It was an extremely poor attempt by Shahrukh to put the Govt on the back foot, both from content and timing points of view.

There are several instances where Shahrukh didn’t make his “secularism” to work with bigots of his own community. Prominent being the troubles faced by Kamal Hassan over his movie release or the fatwas issued to A R Rahman.

A person who doesn’t examine secularism within his own belief system, in my view, cannot be truly secular. So for Shahrukh to pretend that ‘secularism’ has suddenly taken a worse turn is either a political stunt or reflection of his political bias.

Shahrukh shouldn’t also make a big issue of unintelligent statements, for if he does, he dignifies those who make them and also encourages those who want to use him for political gains.

Shahrukh must be a talisman for his community, urging them to be more mainstream, shed perpetual notions of victimhood and be confident about their rights offered by the country.

While he doesn’t have to be apolitical, he shouldn’t try to provide political capital to a particular party in the garb of being a “secular”.

As a public personality, he has to reconcile to the fact that he’d be subject to some level of scrutiny.  While he may not always be accepting how he gets scrutinized, he should learn to take them in his stride.

The nation too reserves it’s right to accept or reject his views.

To borrow from his movie titles, for both sides, it is ‘Kabhi Haan, Kabhi Naa’

The anatomy of Pseudo seculars

It is not very often that one builds the core of an argument based on what Chetan Bhagat writes. But this time he is right and so, he must get his credits.

Writing for the Times of India, Bhagat recently chronicled the psyche of a “liberal”, which I firmly believe is a “liberal” usage of the word. He argued, that the “liberal clan” is rallying against Prime Minister Modi because they don’t think of him as one of them, that is the elite, English-speaking and worldly-wise group. In other words, he summarizes the movement against Modi and BJP as “elitist”.

Chetan makes a valid point, but I think that the “elitist bias” is just one of the markers of the group, whom I would rather address as “pseudo-seculars” and not liberals.

If we go back in recent history, “pseudo-secularism” was never part of the political lexicon, not until Lal Kishan Advani introduced the term to Indian masses as an effective counter to the ‘communal’ charge levied against him and his party. And with that, I think Advani altered the political landscape of secularism forever.
Apart from the obvious elitism that pervades their thinking, I believe that there are 4 factors that characterize the psyche of a pseudo-secular.

1. Accepting the Abrahamic version of Hinduism without questioning

Hinduism is a rare religion because it represents a fusion of rich heritage of detailing through literature, but without being dogmatic about it. One of the favorite pastimes of the pseudo-seculars is to bash Hinduism because somewhere in the Manu Smriti it is ‘documented’ that “molten lead should be poured into the ears of a Shudra who happens to overhear recital of Vedas”. As barbaric, unimaginable and unjust it sounds; there is of course no recorded history of “molten lead” being actually poured. What the pseudos’ would cleverly not mention is that there is no “ordainment” in the Manu Smriti.

The problem of these religious scriptures is that most of them are in Sanskrit, a language that unfortunately is not the preserve of the Hindus anymore, even the most believing of them all. As the Hindu couldn’t understand the religious scriptures of his own religion, he had to, unwittingly depend on the interpretations of those who would translate and present those parts which are inimical to the interests of the faith in particular, and humanity in general.

The pseudo-seculars have never bothered to develop their own cognitive abilities to understand the texts, question the rationale and assimilate their own views beyond the metaphorical quagmires that abound in Hinduism.

The pseudo-seculars grow up believing the “Abrahamic” interpretation of Hinduism which is hostile and explicitly radicalizing the mindset.

2. Personal experience leading to selective Atheism

The concept of God and the relationship of a human being with his/her maker is quite complex. It is beyond my purview and ability of course, to define it or advice on the inferences that one should draw.
Most pseudo-seculars are born in a family of believers. The starting point of atheism is usually when the “relationship” with God starts to sour, usually when a ‘litmus test’ of the wannabe atheist fails.

Even as a believer, I can’t quite rationalize some of the things that have happened in my life and neither do I accept the “Karma explanation” in its entirety. But I have not become loathsome or bitter about God, because I have reconciled to the fact that the designs of my life will never be revealed to me wholesomely.

But the mind of the newbie Atheist, soon-to-be-a-pseudo-secular is not at ease. He wants the answers instantly and when he doesn’t get them, he starts hating God. And because the God which failed his “litmus test” was a “Hindu God”, he starts hating only them.

The Atheism of the pseudo-seculars never grows beyond this infancy of hating Hindu Gods. As a natural extension, the pseudo-secular develops a virulent hatred for anything, anyone which endorses a Hindu belief.

3. After a point, It becomes fashionable and profitable

There was this proverbial cat which wanted to acquire the stripes of the magnificent tiger. So it takes a hot iron rod and draws stripes all over its body, even as it inflicts great pain. Only after the wounds have healed, does the cat realize that one has to be born a tiger. Even as the cat castigates itself for its foolishness, it also realizes that the hot iron rod has given it a fashionable design.

The case of the pseudo-secular isn’t too distinctly different from the cat. Even as the realization dawns that they are not being truly secular by becoming a pseudo-secular, it also opens up a “world of opportunities” for them, generally aided and abetted by the apologists of jihadists and evangelists.

The new-found recognition and honor, is also not bereft of considerable financial benefits. Who wouldn’t like, for example, fully sponsored international trips, foreign currency payouts merely in exchange for mouthing expletives and unprintables against their ‘former religion’. The access to several intangible benefits and financial incentives makes a compelling case for the pseudo-secular to continue their path of obscurity.

4. False equivalence of an intellectual

The pseudo-secular also enjoys the benefit of getting drawn into a false equivalence of being an intellectual. After all, how any person who has a questioning mindset, however ‘questionable’ it is, be anything but an intellectual ?

In a country like India which huge polarities of views, the “intellectuals” have established their own domain of expertise. That is to express a view on anything and everything. Of course to be an intellectual, you need a few markers – attire – jeans & kurta, personal grooming, or the lack of it and an ability to abuse Hinduism incessantly.

The Vatican canonizes someone only after a long and due process, but an Indian pseudo-secular can be instantly canonized as an “intellectual” only by abusing Hinduism. It is a mouth-watering proposition.

The Hindu population without a strong central religious authority, becomes an easy prey to the evil machinations of the pseudo-secular.

At a time when the country is witnessing a “mild pushback” from an assertive brand of Hinduism, the role of the pseudo-seculars is to ensure that the gullible Hindu is taken on a garden path and made to believe that he is “communal” because he asserts his right to be a Hindu.

The pseudo-secular is a vital cog and a valuable ally in eliminating Hinduism from the land of the Indus.

Time for the ‘right’ Right

The last few weeks have witnessed unprecedented mounting of agenda-driven, hatred-filled pressure on a Govt that is not averse to espousing a justified Hindu cause.

Ever since the landslide victory of Narendra Modi which saw him ascend to the top post, there has been a concerted effort to paint the Indian story in black. A fragmented and deeply corrupt opposition had to come together and create a “make-believe” plank of “secularism” to mount a scathing attack on a Government that still seems quite determined to fix a plethora of problems – core infrastructure, jobs, execution and cleanliness to just name a few.

The idea is quite simple : Since the opposition cannot usurp the ‘development plank’ of Modi Government, they had no choice but to resurrect a new one even at the cost of deepening the fault lines between communities, primarily Hindu and Muslim.

An egregious media which has now taken the form of a mafia is virulently against the government and has succeeded in magnifying what would otherwise be common place events in a less literate, chaotic India. By this, I don’t mean to justify the events but the attempts by media to portray as if India was previously a “garden of secularism” which is now sullied is being too clever by half. Prior to Modi Govt, this is the same India which witnessed the Sikh riots of 1984, a fact conveniently ignored by the media.

Anyways none of this is going to change in the short run and that’s neither the purpose of this post.

I am equally concerned and if I may say even appalled at the response of those who are claiming to support the ‘Hindu cause’ otherwise known as the ‘Right-wing’. Everywhere, be it in the internet or the social media, the “right wing” is caricatured as a lumpen, illiterate, uninformed motley group and derisively labelled as “Bhakts”.

It is quite sad that the ‘right-wing’ jumps to abuse without any invitation at all. Not only does it lower the discourse to abysmal levels but it results in ineffective countering of the evil designs of the pseudo-seculars / intellectuals and the media mafia.

Abuse is an ineffective tool because when one resorts to it, it signals the end of ‘reason’. Of course I don’t include use of wit or non-abusive repartees (even if personal) but indulging in broad brushing and dragging family members etc. are indications of a mind that’s incapable of reasoning.

Also I often find that the “right wing” defends the indefensible. One of the first lessons in argument is not to pick up cudgels for things that cannot be defended. For example, the bane of Hinduism is the caste system. While there are technical explanations of how Varna degenerated into castes etc.., much of this is lost on those who are keen to lump Hindus as a casteist community. Abusing such a person is to no avail. The proper response is to acknowledge the evil of castes but also point out the great strides that the Hindu society has made and is still making. The Abrahamic religions on the other hand have degenerated because they’ve blindly adopted the caste system. The very fact that there are ‘Dalit Christians / Muslims’ is proof enough that there’s no caste fungibility upon conversion.

It is important for those professing allegiance to the Hindu cause to be seen as erudite, saner and a confident community that is capable of defeating the pseudo seculars by force of their argument and not by abuse.
The “right wing” shouldn’t also deter from castigating and ostracizing those lumpen elements who don’t do the Hindu cause any good by their abusive behavior. It will indeed be a very sad day for Indian society if “right wing” becomes synonymous with abuse.

It is time indeed for the “right” Right to represent us.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.