Are the Social-Media
Regurgitations of AIT-Mongers Based on Slander or Libel, Or Do they Indicate
Hyper-Delusional Disorder?
Shrikant G.
Talageri
I just wanted to draw attention
to a tweet someone sent to me today. It is apparently put up by a tweeter Pingui@Pingui255111,
who has just joined twitter (X) in September 2024, is following 2 and is
followed by none, and seems to have joined twitter only as part of an organized
slander-campaign.
The tweet, put up yesterday
(11-11-2024) is as follows:
“I
know, people have done crazier things like talageri who faked a horse image and
got caught and embarrassed. There is also a pca sample floating around with 80%
steppe dna. That’s why we should wait for published peer reviewed papers and
not random tweets or podcast talks.”
The fact that this
super-illiterate person thinks “peer-reviewed papers” are Heaven-Dictated
Revelations (I have written so much on the third-rate, false and fraudulent
nature of peer-reviewed papers, that I will not bother to repeat any of it
here) as compared to “random tweets” (excepting of course only his own tweets!)
shows the abysmally low intellectual level of not only this specimen but the
entire class of AIT-mongers that he represents, goes on to compound his folly
by referring to me as “talageri who faked a horse image and got caught and
embarrassed”.
Mr. Cartoon, the
accusation you make (of faking a horse image and getting caught and
embarrassed) was not alleged about me, but about NS Rajaram. Whether it was
true or not is not my business to investigate, but the poverty of the AIT side
is being perennially demonstrated by its continuous citing of this alleged “fake”
to tar the entire anti-AIT side, in the absence of more concrete allegations
and in the absence of any defense for countless fakes and frauds from the AIT
side. But, alleging that I was the person who is alleged to have faked a horse
image is one more step ahead in the fraudulent AIT campaign.
Before this, people
have made any number of accusations (not counting of course the half-witted denunciation
of scholarship unsupported by “peer-reviews”), such as about my having “insulted
Witzel’s wife”, which I have already dealt with in a previous article. What
next? Will I be accused of the Gandhi-assassination, on the ground that I am a Hindutva
supporter, and will that stand as proof of the untenability of the OIT?
The Senselessness of Internet
Discussions on the “Aryan” Issue
Shrikant G. Talageri
I
have basically stopped writing articles, whether on ancient history or on
politics, since I am tired of repeating myself ad nauseam for people who do
not, or cannot, read. Life is too short and precious to waste time repeating
myself again and again into a vacuum. But sometimes, when something really
taking the cake in ridiculousness is brought to my notice, my sense of humor
tempts me to give a “response”. I have managed to avoid this temptation for a
long time, but today a tweet was brought to my notice which was so hilarious (again
a tweet by one of those pompous AIT-supporting Brahmins who cannot control
their pathetic obsession with trying to link their superior Brahmin selves to
alleged “Aryans” coming from the golden west which allegedly brackets them
genetically with white Europeans rather than with Indian non-Brahmins, and who
therefore regularly pour out their illiterate tweets on X), and so revealing
about the writer’s ignorance and imbecility, that I sat down to write a short
tongue-in-cheek piece.
The
tweet in question is by a clownish AIT-supporting Brahmin Rahul
@Rahulkrish91858:
Haha typical
argument for sake of it ...Son firstly as per western scholars it was
translated as attendants not as elephant . But son it was talageri who
translated it as elephant . I think you better ask @ElstKoenraadabout ibha .
Why
trouble @ElstKoenraad with half-witted comments?
I
do believe, however egotistic on my part it may seem to many, that I have
revolutionized the subject of Rigvedic historical studies, that I have
discovered many absolutely unchallengeable types of revolutionary evidence in
the Rigveda conclusively proving the OIT beyond any doubt, and that no-one can
prove anything that I have written to be wrong. But honestly, this clown gives
me credit for something so incredible that even I am staggered! According to
him the translation of the Rigvedic word ibha as “elephant” was first
done by me, and that before I made this translation all scholars were unanimous
that ibha means “attendants”!!!
What
he is suggesting is so ridiculous, even as his fantastic estimation of my power
and influence is incredibly naïve and flattering, that I feel I must spell out
exactly what he is in effect saying. And to understand what he is saying one
must read the works of Rigvedic scholars and see how they have dealt with the
word ibha:
Two
great Indological scholars, Pischel and Geldner, translate the word ibha,
regularly, as “elephant” (Geldner, it must be noted, is the scholar
whose translations were described by Witzel as the most reliable ones when he
was castigating me for allegedly “relying” “wholly” on “unreliable” Griffith).
Here
is what I had written in my article on elephants about this translation as “attendants”:
“Throughout the entire history of Indian Vedic and
linguistic tradition, the word íbha- means "elephant": the
Uṇādi Sūtra (III.147) of Pāṇini (or, according to many authorities, of sources
even anterior to him) tells us that the word means hastī
"elephant". The same meaning is given by Yāska, Mahīdhara, Sāyaṇa,
and all other traditional Indian Vedic scholars, grammarians, etymologists and
lexicographers. Many of the western Indologists (Müller, Wilson, Uhlenbeck,
Pischel, Geldner) also unambiguously translate the word as
"elephant".
Then what is the basis for translating the word as
"attendants, servants"? This motif was introduced in the last few
hundred years, in defiance of the meaning accepted since thousands of years,
and without any basis in either Indo-European or Sanskrit etymology, initially
by a motley crowd of Indologists (Ludwig, Grassmann, Roth, Zimmer, etc.), on
the basis of the following: the Nirukta of Yāska (6.12) elaborates on
the meaning of "yāhi rājevamavāṁ ibhena" (a section of the
Rigvedic verse IV.4.1) as follows: "yāhirājeva/
amātyavān/ abhyamanavān/ svavānvā/ irābhṛtā gaṇena
gatamayena/ hastinetivā", i.e. "Go like a
king who is accompanied by his minister, or who is the terror of his
enemies, or who is followed by his own attendants, i.e. retinue well nourished
with food, or (riding) a fearless elephant". The word
"attendants" in the above commentary actually refers to the word ama:
Wilson, in his footnote to his translation, tells us that "ama
has also different interpretations, a minister, for amátya, or ama,
an associate". But it has been transferred to the following word íbha
and interpreted as the "real" meaning of the word íbha - so
the "misinterpretation of an original Vedic text" was done not by
ancient Indian grammarians, lexicographers and interpreters of the Rigveda, but
by certain early Indologists - and this misinterpretation has been
blindly followed by most subsequent Indological scholars.
It may, incidentally, be noted that the word íbha is
translated as "attendants, servants" by Griffith, who follows that
interpretation, when the context is sufficiently general, eg. "Tugra with
his íbhas", but in IX.57.3, where the reference is to
people decking up an íbha, he perforce translates the word as
"elephant"!
But, on the basis of this
authoritative "evidence", scholars like Blažek (see above)
confidently assert that "the meaning 'elephant' appears only in the
later language (Mānava Dharmaśāstra) probably thanks to misinterpretation of an
original Vedic text",”
But
according to this clown Rahul @Rahulkrish91858, all the Indologists have
been regularly translating the word as “attendants”, and I was the first to translate
it as “elephant”. In that case, then, are we assume that all the Indologists of
the past named above (Müller,
Wilson, Uhlenbeck, Pischel, Geldner, and in some cases also Griffith) and all
the ancient to medieval Indian Vedic scholars (from Pāṇini and Yāska to Mahīdhara
and Sāyaṇa), all during their widely differing chronological points of
existence, were equipped with crystal balls into which they were constantly
gazing to see what translations or mistranslations of the Rigveda would be
initiated by 20th-21st century CE writers; and the moment
they saw me translating the word as “elephant”, they were so impressed that
they immediately followed suit and mis-translated the word as “elephant”
themselves following my example?
Sorry, Krish baby, flattering though
your suggestion is to my ego, it is a bit too thick to swallow, even for me!
This is just one out of countless
examples of the kind of illiterate bullshit that is bandied around on the
internet, and even in so called academic forums, in respect of the AIT-OIT
debate. I have written everything that was to be written and, except when I am
in the mood to find it entertaining to point out the idiocies of clowns like
the one illustrated here, I genuinely see no need to set pen to paper (or
keyboard to computer) to keep repeating myself on any matter concerning the
“Aryan” debate.
I finished writing the above two
days ago, but did not upload it because I was wondering whether such illiterate
imbeciles deserved to have me wasting my time on taking note of their senseless
comments and pontifications. But today someone brought to my notice another
tweet by this clown Rahul @Rahulkrish91858::
Pleistocene
is dated pre-10K BCE but talageri' date doesn't go back beyond 4000BCE. Talageri
also make a mistake stating that Oldest sections of rigveda is composed in
Harayana and UP but according to Oldest sections of rigveda mentions about
extreme cold so he was wrong.
The man seems totally incapable of
understanding the simplest points. According to him, the actualgeographicaldata in the Rigveda, in the oldest books, which shows that the oldest
sections are composed in Haryana and UP, have no relevance whatsoever,
but general poetic references to “extreme cold” prove…. what? That these oldest
parts were composed in the Arctic region or in the Steppes or in Central Asia or in Kashmir?
To begin with he does not bother to
list out these “mentions of extreme cold” in the oldest sections of the Rigveda.
Secondly, as a resident of Mumbai, I have often read reports and articles in newspapers
during certain particularly chilly spells in the winter months referring to “extreme
cold” conditions prevailing in Mumbai. Where does this automatically locate
Mumbai: in the Arctic region or in the Steppes or in Central Asia or in
Kashmir?
This tendency to draw momentous
historical or geographical conclusions from poetic phrases or references when
the data and facts fail to provide aid is an old and jaded tactic among AIT
writers and “scholars”. And particularly when contesting me, this is always the
desperate last-ditch tactics of these losers when they cannot contest the data
and facts presented by me. The following illustrates one such case quoted by me
in my third book in 2008, where Witzel tried to counter the actual concrete references
to “spokes” (i.e. spoked-wheels) in the Rigveda by treating references to the “swift”
movements of vehicles in the Rigveda as automatic evidence of the existence of
spokes!
“Spoked wheels: In the year 2000, shortly after the publication of my second book, I
was drawn into an e-mail debate between Farmer (joined later by Witzel) and
some OIT protagonists on the subject of references to spoked wheels. It was the
claim of Farmer and Witzel that the references to spoked wheels throughout
the RV showed that the traditionalist OIT claim that the RV was completed
by the fourth millennium BCE was wrong, and the AIT claim that the RV as a
whole was composed in the late second millennium BCE was right, since
spoked wheels were invented in the late
third millennium BCE.
The
OIT side of the debate was unable to provide any coherent reply, and their main
argument was that spoked wheels probably existed earlier, and only remained to
be found in the archaeological record. However, appealing to faith against facts has never been my line, and I decided to examine the
distribution of the references to spokes in the RV. I was confident they would
be found only in the Late Books, and not “throughout” the RV. And,
surely enough, that indeed was the exact case. The following are the only
verses in the RV which refer to spokes:
V.
13.6; 58.5.
I.
32.15; 141.9; 164.11-13,48.
VIII. 20.14; 77.3.
X.
78.4.
It
was then Farmer and Witzel who were reduced to appealing to faith against
facts: quoting poetic references in the Rigveda to the “swift” motion of
vehicles as evidence of the existence of spokes (as if references, in the
RV, to vehicles “moving through the sky” were evidence of aeroplanes, and
references to the destruction of mountains by Indra’s weapon can be cited as
evidence of atomic weapons or explosives.). In fact, Witzel indulges in his
compulsive lying and fraudulent behaviour in the recent Bryant-Patton volume,
where he writes: “There have been efforts, of course always on the internet,
to push back the dates of chariots and spoked wheels (also implied by
Talageri’s 2000 years composition period for the RV, see Witzel 2001a,b)” (WITZEL
2005:393, note 159). When, in fact, far
from “pushing back the dates” of spoked-wheeled chariots, I placed those
dates exactly where Farmer and Witzel
placed them, and only pointed out that the total ignorance of spokes in
the books of the Early and Middle periods “pushed back” the dates of those books
to periods before the invention of spokes.
In
short, the Early and Middle Books of the Rigveda hark back to a period in the
third millennium BCE or earlier, when spoked wheels were yet unknown or
uninvented” (TALAGERI 2008:189-191).
The
two examples of tweets by this clown given above show why it is basically
senseless to indulge in discussions with such illiterate and dogmatic sepoys on
internet (or indeed on any) forums. I will ignore further rantings from this
man, but thought it necessary to illustrate the low intellectual level of
discussions on the subject of the IE Homeland to show why it is futile and
senseless to “discuss’ anything with such people.
Appendix
added 28-10-2024:
The
buffoon is not satisfied with making a fool of himself. He is compounding his
error with the following tweet:
Talageri also blatantly lies saying oldest
section of mention of hima in old Rigveda (mandala 6) occurs only once. But
reality RV6 mandala has most mention of hima in rigveda . Sometimes people
resort to blatant lies . Now he might say satahima doesn't mean winter as such.
:D
And
then he himself demonstrates his stupidity by quoting me as follows:
“Haryana
homeland: The
word hima, in 10 verses in the Rigveda (I.34.1; 64.14; 116.8; 119.6; II.33.2; V.54.15;
VI.48.8; VIII.73.3; X.37.10; 68.10), means "winter" (and winter is
also not a "linguistic memory": it is a season occuring in every
corner of India, and eg.
the derived Marathi word for "winter" is hivāḷā. Further, far from depicting
"memories" of a cold climate, in 4 of the references, the verses talk
about the Indian winter offering relief from the burning heat of the Indian
summer. Notably the only reference in the three Oldest Books, VI.48.8
above, is in a Redacted Hymn), and it is only in a very late reference
in X.121.4 (a reference to the snow-covered mountains of the Himalayas or the
northwest) that it means "snow", and in another reference in a New
Book, in VIII.32.26, it could possibly refer to a weapon made of ice.”
When
the whole point about this piece that he quotes from my article “The Full
Out-of-India Case in Short…” is that hima does not
mean “snow” or “ice” except in one verse (X.121.4)
and possibly in another (VIII.32.26), and that everywhereelse, it means only “winter” (a season found in every part of
India and therefore not in itself an indicator of “memories” of a snowy
climate), how does he conclude from this that now I “might say that satahima
doesn’t mean winter as such”? Was he in a state of inebriation when he put
up this tweet, or is that (which is more likely to be the case) the normal level
of functioning of his brain?
In
my article I listed the ten verses which refer to hima by itself, since
these are the verses where the word could be deliberately and fraudulently mis-translated
by AIT supporters as “snow/ice”, rather than as “winter”,
in order to claim “memories” of a snowy land. The phrase satahima can
only mean hundred winters, and not hundred “snows/ices”,
and so I did not list them.
Indian Citizenship for Bangladeshi Hindu
Refugees?
Shrikant G. Talageri
How long does it take for a citizen of another
country to get citizenship in India?
According to google, when asked the question
"how many years of residence in India qualify for citizenship?":
"Foreigners may become Indian
citizens by naturalisation after residing in the country for at least 12
years and renouncing any previous nationalities".
Another source says the time period is 11 years.
Today,
Hindus are again being massacred in Bangladesh, after the ignominious expulsion
of Sheikh Hasina. If any Bangladeshi today manages to escape from Bangladesh
alive and enters as a refugee into India and continues to remain here and
this fact of his residence here is noted in official records, he will
be able to get citizenship sometime in 2036 at the earliest regardless
of whether he is a Hindu or a Muslim or the follower of any other religion,
both as per pre-2014 laws and post-2014 ones.
In
2014, the BJP brought in a C.A.A. (Citizenship Amendment Act) to
"fast-track" the citizenship of Hindu-etc. (i.e. non-Muslim) refugees
from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan entering India due to persecution in
those countries. The Act was not passed in 2014. It was later passed on
December 11 2019. As per this bill (both as conceived in 2014 and
amended in 2019), a Bangladeshi Hindu who enters India today in 2024 as
a refugee will still not be eligible for citizenship until 2035 or 2036,
since the waiting period has been reduced from 11 or 12 years to 5 years
only for those who had already entered India before 31 December 2014! Even
without this amendment, it would have taken exactly the same period (of 11 or
12 years) for anyone (Hindu, Muslim, or anything else) entering
India after 2014 to acquire Indian citizenship.
It
may be noted that the BJP was in full control of its decisions for 10 years
from 2014 to 2024. It was not dependent on the assent of any ally (supporting
party), and certainly the sweeping way in which the BJP government has been taking
controversial decisions from 2014 onwards (starting with demonetization and
going on to large-scale attacks on opposition parties using state weapons like
the ED, CBI and IT department to split parties and engineer defections and even
to decide which faction of any split opposition party should retain its
original name and electoral symbol) does not indicate that it was ever
prevented from doing what it really wanted to do out of fear of lok-laaj or
criticism. Clearly it never wanted to provide any support to Hindu refugees
being persecuted in foreign countries.
Today
the BJP has the excuse that it is prevented from doing things for Hindus
because of pressure from secular allies. It did not have that excuse for 10
years from 2014-2024, and did not even feel the need to make a pretence of
wanting to do anything for Hindus during those 10 years. Now that it has that
excuse once more (as it did before 2014), it is back to its pre-2014
games of pretending to be wanting to do things for Hindus, secure in the
knowledge that failure to be able to do so is already automatically excused!!
And, of course coming up with lame-duck measures (like the C.A.A.) even on the
issues on which they now want to pretend to be keen to do something. So we see (or
so I am told) a lame-duck attempt to show that they want to do something about
the waqf issue which has been brought to the attention of literate Hindus after
Anand Ranganathan's recent book, by introducing (or pretending to want to
introduce) half-baked and ineffective amendments to the waqf laws.
Is
the BJP solely responsible for turning Hindu issues into a sick joke? It must be remembered that all its treacheries and backstabbing of
Hindus from 2014-2024 were fully defended, supported, whitewashed and justified
by millions of bhakts − ranging from Hindu intellectuals to common Hindu voters − who
thought (or rather pretended to think) that a 1000-year Reich of uncontrolled
BJP rule had commenced in 2014 and so there was plenty of time (forever, in
fact) and no hurry to do all these "Hindu" things which could be done
at some time in future if at all. They egged the BJP on, by word, gesture and
action, to continue in its treacheries and backstabbing with assurances that
they were on the right track.
Today,
a section of Hindu intellectuals has started an online petition asking that
something be done about the persecuted Hindus in Bangladesh. And what is that
"something" that the petition wants done? Here in the words of the
petition itself"
"We, the
undersigned, urge the Indian Parliament to
Pass a
unanimous resolution in recognition of the ongoing violence against Hindus in
Bangladesh, and to condemn this wave of communal violence.
Work with
international bodies, such as the United Nations, to pressure the Bangladeshi
authorities to take concrete steps to protect their Hindu minority and hold
perpetrators accountable (https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/08/1152811).
Advocate for
providing humanitarian assistance and asylum options for Hindus fleeing
persecution in Bangladesh.
It is
imperative that we act now to prevent further atrocities and support the
fundamental human rights of the Hindu community in Bangladesh. Your support can
make a significant difference in mobilizing international action and ensuring
that these vulnerable populations receive the protection they need."
This
petition still does not demand that Hindus persecuted in any country (whether
Bangladesh in the present circumstances or any other) be given full rights to
get asylum and citizenship in India in the same manner as any Jew persecuted in
any other country (or perhaps even without any prerequisite of persecution) has
the right to get asylum and citizenship in Israel.
And it
wants the Indian Parliament to "advocate" (Muslim and Christian countries?)
to provide "asylum options" for these fleeing Hindus!
The
Kashmiri Hindus who fled Kashmir during and after the late eighties and the Meitei
Hindus who have been laid siege in Manipur never had the happy circumstance of
such online petitions in their favor (of course there was no "online"
in the 1900s, but there were no offline petitions either)! Perhaps the Kashmiri
Hindus would still have been living in Kashmir today in full freedom and
happiness and in full possession of their lands and homes, and the Meitei
Hindus would also have acquired ST status like other non-Hindu inhabitants of
Manipur, if Hindu intellectuals all over India had only taken the trouble to bring
such petitions to urge the Indian Parliament and the United Nations to give
justice to them!
If the
Indian Parliament (i.e. the Secularists and leftists in that august body) and
the United Nations (i.e. the Muslim and Christian countries) cold-shoulder this
present petition (already those in Parliament demanding that Rohingyas be given
Indian citizenship are either silent or vocal against allowing Bangladeshi
Hindus into India, and the western media is busy justifying the massacres of
Hindus in Bangladesh as "revenge" for Hindu atrocities!), then of
course they (i.e. the non-BJP members of Parliament, and the United Nations)
will be responsible for the fate of the Bangladeshi Hindus. The BJP and Hindu
intellectuals will have done their best and will have no responsibility in the
matter!!
Appropriately
it was Marx (or at least I think it was) who wrote "History repeats
itself, first as tragedy, then as farce". The cycle of tragedies, i.e.
of Islamic invasions, Islamic rule and Partition ended in 1947. Now there are
only farces being re-enacted all over India. Again and again.
The latest
trend in the BJP journals seems to be to attack Hindus icons who speak out
against the BJP (or even fail to utter magic mantras to make the BJP cross 400
seats) and to call them betrayers. Indiafacts recently published an
article lambasting the RSS for having "betrayed" the BJP by somehow being
responsible for not helping them cross 400 seats. Now, as only to be expected,
Hindu seers who criticize the BJP or say anything inconvenient to the BJP are
under attack:
Naturally
logic has little role in this "all Hindu icons who do not support the BJP
are traitors" campaign. Note the following gems in this article:
1. "it
is time Hindus radically think about dismantling old structures and build new
structures of Dharma based on the principles of true Sanatana Dharma".
That is, now
organizations like the RSS and Hindu schools of seers and sages do not
represent Hinduism. They are "old structures" (like the old
temples in Varanasi which were demolished to create an elite-tourist-friendly slick
modern ambience) that have to be "demolished". Now Modi ji and
the BJP represent the "new structures of Dharma based on the principles
of true Sanatana Dharma".
2. "Dharmacharyas today are seen aligning with the wealthy and powerful,
rather than championing Dharma and justice.
From attending lavish events to endorsing casteism,
these Dharmacharyas seem to stray from their spiritual duties."
Modi ji, the
BJP leaders and the Dharmacharyas
who support them are of course known for their frugal lifestyles (like the
ex-CM of Tripura of the CPM, Manik Sarkar), and for policies and activities
which show a strict refusal to be "seen aligning with the wealthy and powerful, rather than
championing Dharma and justice" or to be seen "attending lavish events"
or to be seen "endorsing
casteism"!!!! One doesn't know whether to laugh or to cry!
3. "Past Dharmacharyas like
Samartha Ramadas, Thirunavukarasar, and Thirumazhisai Azhwar stood firm in
their principles, refusing wealth and power in favour of Dharma…. The current
ones fail to live up to this legacy and appear more like power brokers than
spiritual guides."
Isn't this
insulting to Yogi Adityanath, not to mention all the sadhus, seers and
spiritual leaders who have spoken out in support of the Ayodhya movement and
the BJP or Hindu politics in the past?
4. " Case in Point: Avimukteshwaranand Saraswati
said Uddhav Thackeray was betrayed. However, if ever there was a betrayal, it
was the ideals of a father (Balasaheb Thackeray) betrayed by the son (Uddhav).
·Hasn't Uddhav
Thackeray betrayed his late father by aligning with Congress dynast who abuses
Veer Savarkar in the vilest terms?
·Hasn't Uddhav
Thackeray betrayed Balasaheb by joining Sharad Pawar who lied about the Mumbai
bomb blasts, adding a Hindu angle to it?
It appears Avimukteshwaranand Saraswati's
conscience did not even feel a slight pang at this betrayal."
This raises
or ignores several points.
1. During and
after the Emergency, Bal Thackeray was the only political leader in the whole
of India (apart from the CPI) who supported Indira Gandhi when everyone (from
the RSS and Jan Sangh to the Jamaat-e-Islami and the Shahi Iman to the CPM and Naxalites apart
from every Socialist party and groups of Congressmen) were ranged against her.
2. Of course
Uddhav Thackeray has betrayed Hindutva (but the writer only feels a "pang"
at his aligning with the Congress against the BJP). But the BJP has betrayed
Hindutva on a much deeper and grander and more irreversible scale.
3. It was
the BJP which first tried to align with Sharad Pawar in Maharashtra and even
engineered a midnight coup where Ajit Pawar was sworn in a deputy CM (on the understanding
that the entire NCP including Sharad Pawar would also be a part of the
alliance). Then the Shiv Sena finalized its alliance with Sharad Pawar (although
talks were already in progress).
4. Savarkar
is remembered by the BJP only during elections, or in anti-Congress
contexts. Otherwise, while Mulayam Singh Yadav, the butcher of karsewaks
in Ayodhya, was given a Padma Vibhushan by the BJP (alongwith other
pioneers of casteist politics who were given Bharat Ratnas and Padma
Vibhushan awards), Savarkar was not considered worthy even of the lowest
padma award, the Padma Shri.
5. One of
the persons who released the book on "Hinduterror" was
the then Congressman Kripa Shankar Singh who was given a Lok Sabha seat by the
BJP in the recent elections.
The writer
of the article "did
not even feel a slight pang at this/these betrayal(s)."
5. "Saraswati, a self-styled
Shankaracharya (whose status is court-stayed)…"
Not
supporting the BJP raises all sorts of pseudo-legal issues (with the ED and
I-tax authorities to do the follow-up?). There are many court cases involving
the status of Hindu priests and seers all over the country.
This is what
wikipedia on "Jyotir math" has to say about the status ofAvimukteshwaranand Saraswati:
"After
the death of Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati, who was the Shankracharya of Dwarka
Sharada Math, Swami Avimukteshwaranand Saraswati was made the Shankaracharya of
Jyotirmath.[16]
His coronation was endorsed by Sringeri and Dwarka peeth shankaracharyas.
Supreme Court stopped his coronation as the new shankaracharya after an
affidavit was filed by Puri Shankaracharya.[17]
However many akharas
including Akhil Bhartiya Akhara Parishad and
sadhus have not accepted his appointment as the new shankaracharya".
I suppose
the Sringeri and Dwarka peeth Shankaracharyas should also have their status
questioned in court for endorsing a "self-styled" charlatan
who praises or supports rivals of the BJP?
6. "A
civilisation needs religion to sustain itself. Religion needs institutions to
sustain itself. These institutions, to empower themselves, need political and
financial patronage, which comes from the wealthy and powerful in that society."
This is rich
coming from a person who is castigating Hindu seers for supporting rivals of
the BJP!! The BJP throughout its ten-year tenure absolutelyrefused
to empower Hindi temples and religious and other (educational, etc.)
institutions by the simple act of giving them mere equality with Muslim
and Christian mosques/churches and religious and other (educational, etc.)
institutions, by absolutely and categorically refusing to extend the
scope of articles 25-30 of the Constitution to Hindus (something which even
Syed Shahabuddin of the BMAC had been willing, and wanted, to do). The
BJP thought that their 1000-year Reich had started and they would be in absolute
power forever, and they did not want Hindu templesand religious and other (educational, etc.)
institutions "to empower themselves" like the Muslim and Christian ones are already
empowered, but to be at the permanent mercy of "political and
financial patronage, which comes from the wealthy and powerful in that society".
All this is
just the beginning of the "Hindutva" crackdown on Hindutva.
