The Twelve Indian Political Figures I Like, Respect and Admire the Most

 

 

The Twelve Indian Political Figures I Like, Respect and Admire the Most

 

Shrikant G. Talageri

 

One of the things I always wanted to be was a journalist with a regular newspaper or magazine column in which I could write and express my views on any and every subject that I fancied. This would include not only weighty issues (like music, ancient Indian history, Politics and Ideology) requiring heavy research, but also other lighter issues which I felt impelled to write on (even if only impelled by nothing more than a whim), or topical issues of a temporary nature, or even simply expressing my likes, dislikes and opinions to a captive audience (though this audience would always, of course, have the option of not being captive).

It was not in my fate to be a journalist with a regular newspaper or magazine column, but the advantage of having a blog is not too dissimilar. I have actually written a few such articles, but only occasionally. So now I have decided to also start using my blogspot as just such a space where I could put up my thoughts whenever I felt impelled to do so, regardless of how many people would read them, how many would like (or dislike) them, or how many turn into critics or enemies after reading them.

So here goes: my first article, on the twelve political figures that I like, respect and admire the most. Please note that I am writing in full sincerity and honesty, as I always will, and that the persons I am naming are really and genuinely just what the title suggests them to be. Obviously I do not agree with everything that each of them represents (no two people on this earth can ever really have completely coinciding views on every subject and every act), but for different reasons in each case, these are the people on my list. By coincidence, six of them are no more with us (and the first of them is in a class by himself in my estimation), and six are still alive (at least I hope the last one is, but I have no means of knowing), and the list, except for the first name in each of the two categories, are not necessarily in order of preference:

 

1. Swatantryaveer Savarkar.

2. Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar

3. Lal Bahadur Shastri.

4. Balasaheb Thackeray.

5. Balraj Madhok.

6. Hamid Dalwai.

 

7. Arvind Kejriwal.

8. Manik Sarkar.

9. Raj Thackeray.

10. Arif Mohd. Khan.

11. Dara Singh (of Orissa fame).

12. The unknown, unnamed Sentinelese tribal who shot an arrow and killed the American missionary boy of Chinese origin in November 2018.

I am aware that the list does not contain the name of any woman, but that is not because I am misogynistic, but because women perhaps have never been allowed to take a major role in politics in India to the extent necessary. However, if I had to name a thirteenth name, it would be Indira Gandhi, and a fourteenth would be Subrahmanian Swamy. And there may be a few more which have inadvertently slipped my mind.

One major reason I am writing this piece is also because people always express presumptuous opinions about my political views. I have made my political views very clear in many of my articles (especially in the articles on "Hindutva or Hindu Nationalism", "Leftists and Rightists", "Hinduism vs. Hindutva - Oxism vs. Oxatva" and also in "Rapists, Child Rights, Left and Right" and "the Andaman Islanders and Indian Civilization"), but people continue to pin inappropriate labels on me. They can and will always continue to do it, and I can do nothing about it. But I can put my views across at least for my own satisfaction. So this article.

 

Appendix added 5-9-2021: Savarkar and Kejriwal:

I do not of course wish to go into deep discussions on the people I have named, but as some people have wondered why I name Savarkar above all others, and why I name Kejriwal at all (and as the living political figure I like best), so a few points:

Savarkar: Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, called Swatantraveer or simply Veer Savarkar, is definitely the greatest political figure in India, the perfect epitome of a popular term "intellectual kshatriya". To begin with, not only did he fight for India's freedom all his life, but he also fought for Hinduism, Hindus and Hindu interests: in fact, he coined or popularized the word Hindutva. He suffered physical and mental tortures for several years in the Andaman islands for his activities. And the greatest and most unique thing about him is that after India became free (or I should say, free from British rule) he never once sought any position of power or profit, which he could have done with the very greatest of ease.

And not only did he fight valiantly for freedom and for Hinduism, he also actively and continuously  worked against the evil social practices associated with casteism, and he was a rationalist to the extent that after his death his body was cremated without any religious rituals as per his wishes. Although Mahatma Gandhi is credited with the swadeshi movement and the boycott of British goods, it is Savarkar who initiated the movement long before him in 1905 by publicly burning British goods in a bonfire. His fruitful interactions with Subhashchandra Bose and Dr. Ambedkar are also well documented. And his call for Hindus to join the army in large numbers during the second world war, so that (after the British left India) India would have a well-trained and experienced army, was truly prophetic and timely. And after all this he was a great litterateur and poet: listen to his two extremely touching and stirring songs "jayonstute shri mahanmangale" and "ne mazasi ne parat matrubhumila" so beautifully song by the Mangeshkar family.

It is amusing to see rabid leftists and other Hindu-haters berating him for "tendering an apology to the British government" to get out of the Andamans after spending almost 13 years in the Andamans as a prisoner, and even, ludicrously (and taking as a fact that he had orchestrated the assassination of Gandhi, in spite of the court verdict rejecting such an idea), for "turning his back on his lieutenants" after this assassination. It is obvious these rabid Hindu-haters would have wanted to see Savarkar rotting to death in the Andamans (rather than remaining alive to carry out his role in India's history) or convicted for Gandhi's assassination, but their frustration at neither of these two events taking place cannot be held as a black mark against Savarkar.

This is not to say that I agree fully with everything Savarkar said or felt: I am a vegetarian by ethical conviction (although my mouth still waters at the smell of non-vegetarian food which I gave up in 1973) and cannot agree with his views on meat-eating being necessary for Hindus to be a strong race. I agree with Ambedkar's call for an exchange of population (in 1947) rather than Savarkar's call for a United and undivided India. And obviously I cannot agree with Savarkar's views (though not fully developed) on the AIT.

But none of this detracts from him being the greatest political figure in the history of India.

Kejriwal: About Kejriwal, I could put it in short and say that I am a great admirer of his because I consider myself a real aam aadmi (common man). I was thrilled right from the time of his decision to start a party to fight against corruption and to work for the interests of the common man, even more pleased with the name he gave for his party, and ecstatic when he displaced the two crooked parties which had dominated the Delhi political scene since India became "free". And after he came to power, he has indeed done so much for the common man in so many basic fields - schools, public gardens, water, electricity, public transport, etc. etc - that he has my full support. His work for the common man  does not just compare well with the work done by other parties for the common man, it in fact contrasts sharply with the things constantly being done by other parties against the interests of the common man (and for the interests of the richest and most powerful of Indians), and indeed, very often just to harass the common man and make his life difficult and intolerable - all of which they are expected to condone and even support in the name of ideologies which are brought out of the closet only during election times. These tactics work, and may even work in Delhi in future elections: after all, as one aunt of mine used to like to say whenever occasion called for it: "That is only to be expected. After all, this is Kaliyug".

But what about his "anti-Hindu" and secularist approach, some people may well ask. Well, I have not as yet seen him do anything much more anti-Hindu and secularist than the Congress or the BJP or any other secularist or "Hindu-when elections-approach" party. He was not sitting beside Obama in Delhi and endorsing his call for Hindus to adopt a more tolerant approach to minorities; he did not oppose the extension of article 30 for Hindu institutions and temples and nor did he confiscate, take over and sell temple properties; he did not approach the Supreme Court to argue that special schemes (worth ten thousands of crores) solely for minorities do not do injustice to Hindus…the list is a long one.

Also, he has not set himself up as the terminator/destroyer of India's natural wealth and forests, as the BJP for example has done and is doing on a war footing all over India (reminding me constantly of the earthlings in the film Avatar who tried to completely wipe out the ecology and environment of the alien planet on a war footing). The recent attempts to uproot the Andaman islanders (our earliest ancestors, as per DNA studies) from land they have occupied for tens of thousands of years, and to destroy the Andamanese forests and use them for mercenary commercial purposes, is a case in point.

Obviously I do not agree with everything that he says or does: for just one example, he endorses khap panchayats (which I consider the Indian version of taliban groups). But, on present considerations, he is the best - or the least worst - political figure we have.

NOTE: I should like to add the names of three political activists to the list of people whom I like, admire and respect very greatly for their political activities: the late Tapan Ghosh who carried on a long and relentless fight for Hindus in Bengal, the late Sundarlal Bahuguna who initiated and led the Chipko movement, and the (still living) political artist Aseem Trivedi.

 

NOTE added 24/3/2022: If I have made a mistake, I will accept it. In the above article, I have praised Arvind Kejriwal, and written: "Well, I have not as yet seen him do anything much more anti-Hindu and secularist than the Congress or the BJP or any other secularist or "Hindu-when elections-approach" party." Today, by referring to the film The Kashmir Files as a "jhoothi" film in the Delhi assembly, Kejriwal has made me eat my words and made me feel ashamed of myself for the praise I heaped on him in the above article for which I apologize to all Hindus and especially Kashmiri Pandits. Anyone who can deny the massacre of Kashmiri Hindus and the forced migration of 500,000 of them from Kashmir, and vindicate the powerful Leftist lobby which is out to destroy India and which has been exposed in the film, is a very dangerous person for the country. This does not whitewash the multiple sins of the BJP, but it does show that Kejriwal is not an alternative. I am adding this as an addendum rather than making any change in the above article.

In a Hindi film, there was a famous dialogue: "ek macchar aadmi ko ***** bana sakta hai" (one mosquito can make a man into a *****). Likewise, "ek shabd aadmi ko ***** sabit kar sakta hai" (one word can prove a man to be a *****).

All in all (I think I am fairly confident I will not have to eat my words, and eat humble pie, in respect of any of the other names in the above list), it is true that almost all politicians are crooks: "birds of a feather", or as a Marathi phrase puts it: "ekach maleche mani" (beads from the same string), or, most accurately, as an earthy Konkani phrase from Mangalore puts it: "ɛkkā:: lɛṇḍyᾱ: ku:ḍkɛ" (pieces of the same lump of shit).