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As far back as 1978, in an unpublished article written by me in a notebook (during the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:
IDEOLOGIES
|
TYPOLOGY
|
INSPIRING MOTIVES OR
CHARACTERISTICS
|
CLAIMED AND
ACTUAL AIMS
|
Hindu Nationalism
|
Sāttvik
Elevating Ideology
↑
|
ETHICS
1.Truth.
2.Justice.
3.Humanitarianism.
|
Claimed:
Cultural Justice.
Socio-Economic Justice.
Actual:
SAME
|
Rightism
|
Rājasik
Expansive Ideology
← →
|
MATERIALISM
1.Greed.
2. Lust for Power.
3. Exploitation.
|
Claimed:
Cultural Justice.
Actual:
Economic Exploitation.
|
Leftism
|
Tāmasik
Degrading Ideology
↓
|
DARK EMOTIONS
1. Hatred.
2. Terror.
3. Anarchy.
|
Claimed:
Socio-Economic Justice.
Actual:
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.
Aarey forest is located in which city of India?
ReplyDelete