Tuesday, 15 October 2019

Leftists and Rightists.

There are many words which are bandied around very freely and used as labels by people for themselves or for their enemies, which are extremely gross misnomers. This article is meant to clear the air from my side in respect of the terms leftist and rightist (or left wing and right wing). What I am writing here may be dismissed as my "opinions", but I feel my opinions are based on logic, and, apart from the fact that the rampant wrong use of certain words really gets on my nerves, it is necessary that people should understand exactly what they mean when they use words. Needless to say, these are only my strong views, and I do not claim to be a prophet.

When my recent book "Genetics and the Aryan Debate" was published, someone announced it on twitter on 12/7/2019 as follows: "Here is the right wing response from Shrikant G. Talageri…".

I would have preferred it to be called a "Hindu (or Hindutva) response", if any adjective was to be used at all.

I have always considered the terms leftist and rightist as being totally inadequate to represent a dualistic classification of political ideologies (where one must necessarily and simultaneously consider one of the two to be good and the other to be bad), and particularly the latter term as being totally incorrect in classifying the ideology of Hindutva or Hindu Nationalism:

As far back as 1978, in an unpublished article written by me in a notebook (during the days of Janata Party rule, when I was in college) based on my observations of the proclivities of the "Hindu" politicians of the day, I had defined the three categories of ideologies in India as:
1. Leftism: claiming to fight for socio-economic justice while actually being a front for Hindu-haters.
2. Rightism: claiming to fight for Hinduism and Indian culture and heritage while actually being a front for the forces of socio-economic exploitation and obscurantism.
3. Hindu Nationalism: actually fighting for both Hinduism and Indian culture and heritage as well as for socio-economic justice.
Now, 41 years later, I still stick to this classification.

Unfortunately, Hindu Nationalism has been completely identified with Rightism in India, not just by its enemies but by its avowed supporters as well, and I think it is time the distinction between the two is understood by these supporters at least.

Let me restate the proposition here in a chart:

Hindu Nationalism


Elevating Ideology

Cultural Justice.
Socio-Economic Justice.



Expansive Ideology
← →

2. Lust for Power.
3. Exploitation.
Cultural Justice.

Economic Exploitation.

Degrading Ideology

1. Hatred.
2. Terror.
3. Anarchy.
Socio-Economic Justice.

Cultural Hatred.

In a Hindu internet discussion group a few years ago, the subject of the inadequacy of the "left-right" paradigm and the need to postulate a more real (and more in tune with our Indian way of thinking) classification of political ideologies came up. I brought up this three-fold classification and suggested that they could be called sāttvik, rājasik and tāmasik ideologies (based on the three-fold classification in the Bhagavadgita, where even food is classified into these three categories). Suddenly, out of the blue, one of the members (a prominent person in the field of banking and economics) burst into a tantrum, spoke disparagingly of the Bhagavadgita, and accused me of being a fanatical Vaishnava (actually I am a Shaiva by caste, and an agnostic by belief, though a staunch Hindutvite, and the three names were only suggestions!) having disdain for Shaivism and Shaktism who was trying to foist my Vaishnava views on others! After this the discussion was completely derailed.

I defined Hindutva or Hindu Nationalism in some detail in my article in the Sita Ram Goel Commemoration Volume published by Voice of India in 2005 (a major part of which is published on my blog under the name "Hindutva or Hindu Nationalism"). I think this needs to be explained here again, In this, I pointed out that there are three aspects to this ideology: Conventional Hindutva, Cultural Nationalism, and Socio-Economic Nationalism.

Here I will only repeat the main points about the first, i.e. Conventional Hindutva, which is what is normally understood by the term Hindutva anyway:

I. Conventional Hindutva.

In my above article published in 2005, I defined the first, Conventional Hindutva, as "what is generally understood by the term Hindutva: an ideology for the defence of Hindu society and civilisation. As the word defence indicates, the first premise is that Hindu society and civilisation are under attack […] Hindu civilisation is the one civilisation whose inner greatness and resilience enabled it to withstand centuries of Christian and Islamic imperialist attack. It is in fact the last major bastion of the pre-Christian civilisations of the world. For that very reason, Hindu society is today the single major target of all these Imperialisms, which are backed by powerful international forces".

I quoted an extract from an article in the Indian Express (Sunday 13/6/2004) by Tavleen Singh, a journalist who cannot by any means be called a Hindu communalist and who was always considered by Sita Ram Goel to be a typical secularist scribe (she even points out, in the article, that she is “not a Hindu”), entitled “This Inner Voice Too Needs Hearing”: “the word Hindutva is being used as a term of abuse […] it is used mostly in pejorative terms […] the debate appears no longer confined to the cloistered world of priests, or even the self-serving one of politics, it has expanded into a challenge to Hindu civilisation […] the wider attack on Indian civilisation that this pejorative use of the word Hindu represents. It bothers me that I went to school and college in this country without any idea of the enormous contribution of Hindu civilisation to the history of the world. It bothers me that even today our children, whether they go to state schools or expensive private ones, come out without any knowledge of their own culture or civilisation […] You cannot be proud of a heritage you know nothing about, and in the name of secularism, we have spent 50 years in total denial of the Hindu roots of this civilisation. We have done nothing to change a colonial system of mass education founded on the principle that Indian civilisation had nothing to offer […] our contempt for our culture and civilisation […] evidence of a country that continues to be colonised to the core? Our contempt for who we are gets picked up these days by the Western press […] racism [is] equated with Hindu Nationalism. For countries that gave us slavery and apartheid that really is rich, but who can blame them when we think so badly of ourselves. As for me I would like to state clearly that I believe that the Indic religions have made much less trouble for the world than the Semitic ones and that Hindu civilisation is something I am very proud of. If that is evidence of my being ‘communal’, then, so my inner voice tells me, so be it.

I myself put it as follows in this article: "If Hindu society and civilisation are to be saved from annihilation, there is only one solution: Hindu consciousness must be aroused, a Hindu perspective and world-view must be cultivated, and Hindus must be educated, on the one hand, about Hindu civilisation and its rich heritage and its major contributions to the world in every field, and about the great sages, seers, saints, scholars, scientists, soldiers, artistes and statesmen, the individuals in every field who represent our past glory and heritage; and, on the other, about the forces out to destroy this civilisation, about the textual sources, ideologies, histories, strategies and present activities of these forces, and about the Hindu struggles against these forces and the Hindu heroes involved in these struggles.
It is also necessary to alert Hindus to the inner weaknesses which make Hindu society susceptible to these forces, the dangers of Secularism, the self-alienation among the Hindu elites and ruling classes and their indifference to, and contempt for, their own culture and civilisation, the breakdown of the defence mechanism of Hindu society, the perversion of certain Hindu values like tolerance, universalism and humanism, and the abandonment of certain other Hindu values like self-respect, rationalism and capacity for objective analysis".
This is what Conventional Hindutva is all about.

But there is nothing in all this to make it necessary that a supporter of the conventional Hindutva ideology should be "rightist" in his economic outlook: that he should be a supporter of mercenary Capitalism, crony Capitalism, anti-poor and anti-labor policies and activities, and organized land-grabbing. Or that he should be a "rightist" in his social outlook, and should promote regressive ideas, socially unjust customs and systems, and an obscurantist vision. And most of all, that he should apply mercenary "rightist" arguments to destroy the very culture that Hindutva ideology is supposed to defend and protect, in the name of modernization, progress and development.
I have dealt with all this in detail in my above article in 2005, in which I set out the full Hindu Nationalist Ideology, which is neither "leftist" nor "rightist", and really have nothing to add here. But recent events make it necessary for me to once again emphasize the essential points here and draw a clear line between Hindutva and the Rightist politics of the mercenary Capitalist forces and the forces of socio-religious obscurantism.

As I wrote then, quoting from an earlier article in 1997 (in the Voice of India volume "Time for Stock Taking"), Indian or Hindu culture refers to "every single aspect of India’s matchlessly priceless heritage: climate and topography; flora and fauna; races and languages; music, dance and drama; arts and handicrafts; culinary arts; games and physical systems; architecture; costumes and apparels; literature and sciences" And not just to the "cultural practices springing from Vedic or Sanskritic sources, but from all other Indian sources independently of these: the practices of the Andaman islanders and the (pre-Christian) Nagas are as Hindu in the territorial sense, and Sanatana in the spiritual sense, as classical Sanskritic Hinduism". Further, a true Hindutvavadi should feel deep pain and impelled to take strong action, not only when he hears of issues of conventional Hindutva discourse, but also "when he hears that the Andamanese races and languages are becoming extinct; that vast tracts of forests, millions of years old, are being wiped out forever; that ancient and mediaeval Hindu architectural monuments are being vandalized, looted or fatally neglected; that priceless ancient documents are being destroyed or left to rot and decay; that innumerable forms of arts and handicrafts, architectural styles, plant and animal species, musical forms and musical instruments, etc. are becoming extinct; that our sacred rivers and environment are being irreversibly polluted and destroyed…..".

This Hindutva or Hindu Nationalism, moreover is a Universal Ideology: "Hinduism is the name for the Indian territorial form of worldwide Sanatanism (call it Paganism in English). The ideology of Hindutva should therefore be a Universal ideology:…[it] should spearhead a worldwide revival, rejuvenation and resurgence of spiritualism, and of all the religions and cultures which existed all over the world before the advent of imperialist ideologies…". And this ideology is totally distinct from both Left and Right, and is based only on Truth, Justice and Humanitarianism.

II. My Published Views on Leftists and Rightists.

In all my twenty-seven years of published writings, this is what I have had to say about leftists and rightists:

1. Leftists: I have always sharply criticized the leftists in my writings, and these references are so numerous that I cannot quote them all here.
In my very first book (1993), the first three chapters were a political reply to the three corollaries of the AIT propagated by leftists. There I pointed out that "Indian 'secularism' is basically a linear descendant of Leftist ideology, and derives its inspiration from Leftist terminology and thought categories, so that 'secularism' boils down to anti-Hinduism" (TALAGERI 1993:10).
Indian Leftism, except in theory, has nothing to do with any kind of socio-economic ideology or ideals or morals or ethics: it is simply a pseudonym for anti-Hinduism, an organized outlet for anti-Hindu bile and venom and a smokescreen for anti-Hindu elements and activities.
Even later, throughout my writings, (e.g. in my article on Hindutva on my blogsite, which is an extract from my longer article "Sita Ram Goel, Memories and Ideas" published in the Sita Ram Goel Commemoration Volume, VOI, 2005), I have sharply and repeatedly criticized the "leftists", who were at least till that time a reasonably well-defined self-declared group.

2. Rightists: But while I have always and repeatedly criticized the leftists in my writings I never bothered to criticize the rightists because till now the power to perpetrate anti-Hindu acts was concentrated with the leftists and the rightists were not powerful enough to control events. In fact while the word leftist appears repeatedly in all my four books and most of my articles, the word rightist (or right wing) does not appear even once in my four books, and the following is a sum total of all the occurrences of this word in my articles:
a) "Swadeshi should naturally be the cornerstone of any national socio-economic policy, leftist or rightist" (in my article in the Sita Ram Goel commemoration volume, 2005).
b) "Rightist/Feudal 'Nationalism' where only one particular part of the Indian ethos (Vedic/Sanskrit) is to be treated as THE Indian national ethos and identity from which all other (equally Indian) parts are to be 'derived'" (in my blog article "Are German and French closer to Sanskrit than Malayalam, Kannada, Telugu", 2017).
c) "….political ideologies which flourish in India, leftist and rightist, which are based on the theory that Hinduism is the evolved form of a foreign religion brought into India by 'Aryan' invaders in 1500 BCE…." (in my blog article "Hans Henrich Hock - A Scholar Lying Through His Teeth", 2017).
d) "Most of these 'leftist' human rights organizations, with their predilection for stout defence of the 'human rights' of predator entities, are, more often than not, financed mainly by American sources linked with rightist 'international' American foundations and organizations promoting rightist American agendas. So it cannot basically be a 'left' versus 'right' issue" (in my blog article "Rapists, 'Child Rights', 'Left' and 'Right'", 2017).
e) "But this philosophy of 'generosity at the expense of others' is not restricted to the 'left'. It is as well represented in the 'right' and the 'centre' as well. When, for example, poor villagers are forcibly displaced and ousted from areas inhabited by them (i.e. by their ancestors) since thousands of years, and their lands handed over to multi-billionaire industrialists for a penny, it is the 'rightist' capitalist classes and their captive intellectuals who loudly justify this in the name of 'development', and it is common to hear even politically neutral people mindlessly but firmly echoing this point, and philosophically declaring that all this is necessary for development and that some people must sacrifice for the development of the nation as a whole and for the good of countless other people. Needless to say, these practical advocates of 'sacrifice of a few for the good of the many' would have no doubts, deep in their hearts, about themselves personally deserving to belong, in every case and circumstance, to the category of the benefiting many rather than to that of the sacrificing few, and would exhibit a sharply different attitude if the positions were reversed. No-one cares until they are personally affected, and everyone is willing to be philosophically pragmatic and broad-minded when the victims are others than themselves" (in my blog article "Rapists, 'Child Rights', 'Left' and 'Right'", 2017).
f) "When Morarji Desai was asked by a journalist about being a rightist, he quipped: 'I am a rightist in the sense that I believe in supporting what is right and opposing what is wrong', or words to that effect. Regardless of how true he was to his words, let us strive to support what is right against what is wrong, in every case, rather than thinking and fighting as representatives of the 'right', 'centre' or 'left'" (in my blog article "Rapists, 'Child Rights', 'Left' and 'Right'", 2017).
g) "There is no ethics, logic or honesty in the stands taken by advocates of the 'left', 'right' or 'centre' in any matter, there is only personal or political convenience: the positions of Dr Swamy and the human rights activists would be diametrically opposite to their present stands, but they would still be facing each other from opposite sides, if the discussion were about Asaram 'Bapu' rather than about the cherubic 'child' in the 'nirbhaya' case"  (in my blog article "Rapists, 'Child Rights', 'Left' and 'Right'", 2017).
[with genuine apologies to Subrahmanyan Swamy, of whom I am a great fan in many ways].
Needless to say, not one of these references by me to "rightists" is at all a complimentary one.

In my above article in the Sita Ram Goel Commemoration Volume, in fact, I clearly put it as follows in positioning the essence of Hindutva ideology vis-à-vis the "left" and the "right":
"the ultimate basis of any ideology must be Truth, and the ultimate aim Justice. And, all issues of Justice can be broadly classified under two heads: Cultural Justice and Socio-Economic Justice. But, the fact is that vested interests, throughout history, have always conspired to place these two categories in mutually antagonistic slots: to put it in simple (even simplistic) terms, the advocates of cultural injustice have always positioned themselves as champions of socio-economic justice, and the advocates of socio-economic injustice have always positioned themselves as champions of cultural justice. The conflict, which should have been between Wrong and Right, has been converted into one between Left and Right: forces supposedly fighting for the oppressed are motivated more by a pathological and rabid hatred for Hinduism, and forces supposedly fighting for Hindutva are motivated more by deeply entrenched vested interests and rabid antagonism to ideas of socio-economic egalitarianism. There is always an unspoken agreement between the two sides to maintain this state of affairs; and genuine thinkers, idealists and activists have to ultimately fall in line, on this side or that. It is time for Hindutva to break out of this vicious circle, and to start representing Right against Wrong, rather than Right against Left" (TALAGERI 2005:298).
As I explained in this article in 2005:
"In 1978, I decided to write a book which would set out the whole ideological position as I saw it. The first chapter 'Communalism' would analyse the concepts of communalism and Hindu nationalism in minute detail. The next four chapters would analyse in detail the forces arraigned against Hindu nationalism. And the sixth chapter, 'Blueprint', would present a blueprint for Hindu Nationalist ideology. Ultimately, only the first chapter was written out, in a 200-page notebook […]. The article (which is what the chapter amounts to), written in 1978, is extremely dated [….]. But the basic ideas I held then, even if expressed naively, are the same basic ideas held by me even now, as expressed in the present article: the idea that Hindu nationalism is a question of cultural justice; that there is a separate question of socio-economic justice which requires equal attention; that there is a conspiracy to perpetuate socio-economic injustice by those claiming to be fighting for cultural justice, and to perpetuate cultural injustice by those claiming to be fighting for socio-economic justice […]".

III. Why I feel the Need To Speak Out Now.

So far, as I wrote above, it was the leftist forces who dominated the enemy lines against Hinduism, Hindutva, India and Indian culture. In the last two decades, the rightist forces are rapidly occupying large parts of this space inimical to Indian culture. So I feel the strong need to define once more, and more emphatically, the true contours of Hindutva ideology as distinct from left and right. The enemy attack is on a broad front, and the only difference is that while leftists attack out of hatred, rightists attack out of greed (i.e. for profit). In this article I will only deal with one issue: our Natural Heritage.

What is happening in India today is a war between two evil forces, the "Left" and the "Right". I am finding it increasingly difficult to whip myself into an outrage with regard to the anti-Hindu activities of "leftists" while being expected to turn a blind eye to, or, worse, defend or support, or, even worse, glorify, the anti-Hindu activities of "rightist" forces. Is it more infuriating  to see hate-filled leftists (and "secularists") viciously targeting Hindu and Indian sensibilities and interests (Ayodhya, Kashmir, Infiltrator issues, Sabarimala, Tripureshwari, missionaries and Proseytization, common civil code, Savarkar, Aurangzeb and Tipu Sultan - the list is endless), or is it more infuriating to see mercenary rightists defending and glorifying the destruction of our forests and environment? To me, both are equally bad. Are the foreign-funded anti-Hindu activities of the "leftists" and "secularists" worse than the equally foreign-funded (through anonymous electoral bonds and judicially unscrutinizable foreign-corporate donations) anti-Hindu activities of the rightists? Sorry, to me both are equally bad.

When millions of Hindu trees and forests (yes they are Hindu as much as we are) all over India are being massacred with jihadist fervour, in the name of "development" and as payback for funds received by rightist forces, is it "Hindutva" to dismiss the terrified and agonized dying screeches of these Hindu trees and forests (and the accompanying Hindu animals, birds and environment), to indulge in apologetics in defence and support of these massacres, and to rail against those ("leftists" or whatever) who seem to be heeding these dying screams? If the people who are coming to fight for our Hindu trees, environment and green heritage, and to at least try to rescue Bharatmata from having her green cover stripped off her body (as Krishna came to rescue Draupadi from having her clothes stripped off), are "leftists", then it is a great blot on the credentials of those ("rightists"?, "Hindutvites"?) who claim to be standing for Hinduism, Hindutva and Indian culture that they should be condemning this act rather than committing it themselves! If the real enemies of Hindutva are these tree-protecting "leftists"  on whom our armies and security forces are to be let loose,  rather than for example on the missionaries who are running rampant all over India (in Andhra Pradesh now with full and open backing from the Christian CM who is being wooed by our "Hindutva" politicians - and yes, with the support of sections of the ruling "Hindu" dispensation in Maharashtra as well!), then it is time to do away with subterfuge and to officially declare Mammonism (not to be confused with Mormonism) as our national religion.
Does all this sound "hyper"? Well I'm sorry if it does, but being cold and calculating is a key element of Mammonism, but not of Hinduism and genuine Hindutva, and certainly not of my Hinduism and Hindutva!

The amazing part is not that rightist writers have become ardent votaries of tree-destructive "development", and that self-avowedly "rightist" journals carry articles asking that Mumbai be saved from the save-Aarey activists. It is the sheer hypocrisy of it all. I receive a daily "newsletter" by email from Drishtikone. Today (7/10/2019 at the moment of writing this sentence) I received one as usual. It contains an advertisement (which appears daily), telling us about the importance of saving trees, and asks for donations to save trees and to "Contribute Rs.42 per tree. Plant trees at CauveryCalling.org" with the message: "Please support Cauvery Calling initiative from Isha Foundation.  It is for the survival of humanity, not just two cities, states or a river. Click here to know more and donate."
A little below this is an article on the Aarey imbroglio: "Aarey Forest Tree Cutting Agitation - when mindless activism becomes a mental disease",  which lambasts and ridicules the ("mentally-diseased") "Save-Aarey" activists and fully backs the setting up of the Metro Shed (not even the Metro lines) in the heart of Aarey (in opposition to the less environment-destructive alternatives available) - the proverbial cockroach entering by first pushing in its whiskers:
With a straight face, the article tells us about the overriding inportance of "development", and gives the following certificate to the Maharashtra government, which has been passing environment-destructive laws on a regular basis throughout its now 5-year rule: "The government has – in its defense – planted more trees elsewhere in Mumbai to compensate for the 'sin' of cutting these trees." The article ends with a venomous diatribe against those who dared to oppose the tree-cutting: "You don’t give a rat’s ass about the environment, for you cannot make the sacrifices.  But you want others to do so.  While you move around in your oh-so-amazing luxury cars blasting AC at full power to make your sweat from hard activism go away.  And, from there you want to lecture on the environment.  Now, that’s rich! Aarey forest trees are not the only trees that will suffer because of such antipathy for real change.  The whole planet will suffer.  Mindless activism is a mental disease.  No other way to look at it."

Sorry to say, I also have this "mental disease", though I don't possess even a luxury (or non-luxury)  bicycle, nor have AC even in my bedroom at home! The only thing I cannot understand is whether the Drishtikone people are Chennai haters who want Chennai to miss out on development, or Mumbai-haters who want to destroy Mumbai's ecological shield, or both.

Today (now 8/10/2019 at the time of writing) the newspapers tell us that the "Hindu" forces have managed to illegally destroy 2141 of the 2185 Hindu trees intended to be cut, so the stay order that the Supreme Court has placed on the further destruction of trees makes no difference whatsoever to them now - in short a fait accompli par excellence. Now they claim that they will start the construction of the "metro carshed" on which, apparently, the Supreme Court has not passed any restrictions!

I will not bother to discuss the Aarey issue: everything has been said in the following video by Dhruv Rathee (who, of course, will be dismissed as "leftist", but Truth can never be leftist or rightist):

This is not a single one-time issue. Since the last few years there is a consistent and continuous and very deadly and accelerating series of attacks, on our Hindu natural heritage, which constantly remind me of the situation in the American film Avatar, where earthlings, after destroying the natural environment of their own planet and rendering it almost uninhabitable, are bent upon waging a destructive war to wipe out the natural heritage of an alien planet. India may be an alien place to mercenary rightists, to me it is my motherland.

Let me make my position very clear: I am a true Hindutvavadi, and in my strong Hindu and Hindutvavadi opinion, every single person, irrespective of his political party affiliation, ideology, organisation, caste, religion, state, profession, etc. (and whatever his/her motive) who is opposing this destruction of our Indian and Hindu natural heritage is, at least in this respect, and every other similar respect, a friend of Hindus and true Hindutvavadis and of our  Indian and Hindu heritage (even if being friends is not the aim or wish or to the liking of that person, and even if he/she is basically anti-Hindu in all other matters). And everyone who is going overboard supporting and defending for petty political reasons, even if not actually carrying out for mercenary reasons, the continuous mass genocide of our trees and natural heritage, is, at least in this respect, and every other similar respect, an enemy of India, Hindus, Hinduism and Hindutva, regardless of his/her position on other issues.

There is no "left" and "right" in any of this. Saving our heritage cannot be given directional or ideological labels.

I do not need to point out that leftists (and those whom, see above, I have called the linear descendants of the leftists, i.e. the secularists) are enemies of Hinduism, Hindutva, India and Indian culture. I have been writing about this in great detail since twenty-seven years now. But I have also written the following in the preface to the 2003 reprint of my 1993 book "The Aryan Invasion Theory and Indian Nationalism" with the full approval of Sita Ram Goel, the true ideological Bhishma Pitamaha of Hindutva ideology (who checked the preface and phoned me his full agreement with what I had written): "[…] more foreign agency, anti-nationalism and injustice are possible in India in the name of Hinduism and Hindutva than in the name of Islam and Christianity or Secularism and Leftism. And more dangerous since it is cloaked in the garb of Nationalism". This dangerous entity functioning "in the name of Hinduism and Hindutva", and therefore mindlessly defended and supported by Hindu-minded people, is Rightist ideology.

Another catch-phrase which this Rightist ideology regularly employs in its mercenary activities is "development". It is not that I am writing this now. As I said, this was my theme as far back as 1978, and this is what I wrote in my article in 2005 in the Sita Ram Goel Commemoration Volume: "In the past, much evil, injustice and damage has been done in the name of religion; but even more evil, injustice and damage has been done, and is being done even now on an ever-increasing scale, in the name of progress and development. As a result of many of the half-baked, ill-thought of, or plainly mercenary, things which take place in the name of progress and development, the world not only becomes vastly poorer of large parts of its rich heritage, which is lost forever, but it often has to pay a heavy price for it (the lethal effects of deforestation, industrial pollution, and mega-urbanisation, for example, are already apparent; and will become so clear in the days to come, that even the most determined opponent of social and environmental concerns will be compelled to note them; by when, of course, it will be too late, since some things become irreversible after a point of time), and the results, even otherwise, are often pathetic, tragic and depressing".

I know that by writing all this, I may be creating enemies, and building up legions of trolls, critics and haters - many of them powerful ones. Many of those who thought or spoke well of me will be sharply alienated, without my gaining in return a single supporter from the ranks of my present critics. But then gaining supporters through hypocrisy and lies has never been my aim. Speaking the Truth has its very grave penalties, but it will nevertheless always be my aim.

I also know what I write, or what anyone writes or says, can make no difference to whatever is going to happen - there is no intoxication like power, and events take their own course. But silence is equivalent to assent or complicity so I must place my views on record, at least on matters which I deem to be very important.  It is possible I may now become the target of attack from both sides. Well, this is the price one has to pay. I will try to not react to vicious attacks from either side. If this whole article sounds like bakwas to the reader, well so be it. At least I will have made my position clear.

This was not an autobiographical article or an ego-trip: it was intended to redefine the classification of political ideologies. The iron-clad rule at present is that one must identify oneself with one of the two sides (whether overtly or covertly) and just support whatever that side does and oppose whatever the other side does, holding the other side up as a bogey all the time. But I think it is time for Hindu ideology to break out of this madhouse definition and vicious circle, and start representing only Truth, Justice and Humanitarianism, with full operation of both conscience and vivekabuddhi.

1 comment: