Tuesday, 11 November 2025

Nageswara Rao Ji: You Are Wrong

 


Nageswara Rao Ji: You Are Wrong

Shrikant G. Talageri 

 

M Nageswara Rao has put up the following tweet just a short while ago, and someone already sent it to me for my reaction:

https://x.com/MNageswarRaoIPS/status/1988157976910463384

THE POWER OF BELIEF

Part 1: The Individual Experiment

 He was a man already sentenced to die; his fate sealed, the electric chair waiting. But then, an unusual proposal came. A scientist approached him with an alternative: instead of a violent execution, he could take part in a psychological experiment that promised a peaceful death. The method sounded simple, almost harmless. A small incision on the wrist. A bowl placed beneath the arm. And the quiet sound of liquid dripping. Desperate to avoid the terror of the chair, the prisoner agreed. He was strapped to a stretcher. His eyes were covered so he could not see. A shallow cut was made, just enough to feel pain, but the real trick was hidden. The bowl beneath him wasn’t collecting blood. Nearby, a concealed bottle slowly released fluid drop by drop, mimicking the sound of his life draining away. The prisoner believed the illusion completely. As the drip continued, his skin grew pale. His breathing became shallow. His heart raced in panic. He felt himself dying because his mind accepted that death was happening. And when the dripping stopped, his body surrendered. No massive blood loss. No internal failure. No poison. He died purely from belief.

Part 2: The Collective Haemorrhage – Modern Hindus

This experiment revealed something unsettling and extraordinary: the mind can shape reality; not just for individuals, but collectively for communities and societies. A single person can die from imagined bleeding; an entire community can collapse from imagined defeat. When a society or people believes it is doomed, it begins to unravel even before the real blows land. Not because survival is impossible, but because collective belief in failure makes it so. Today, this defeatist mentality is gripping modern Hindus and Hindu society. A slow, invisible mental haemorrhaging is underway through the relentless de-Hinduisation process; a drip-by-drip erosion of cultural confidence, historical pride, and civilizational identity. Temples are reduced to tourist sites, scriptures to museum pieces, and Sanskrit to a “dead language.” The youth are taught shame instead of reverence for their history, religion, culture and civilisation; apology instead of assertion. And the sinister role of the #PseudoHindutva Sangh Parivar in this process is no mean. What began as a movement to awaken Hindu consciousness has, in many quarters, devolved into ritualistic rhetoric and political opportunism, draining the very vitality it claims to protect. Instead of bold reclamation, there is bureaucratic control. Instead of intellectual revival, there is sloganised stagnation. The drip continues: one compromised narrative, one diluted tradition, one silenced voice at a time. Fear alone can weaken the body, a family, or a people. Hope alone can restore it. Belief can kill but it can also heal, build, rise, and overcome. In life, many people, communities, and societies lose long before they fail because they convince themselves they can’t succeed. The battlefield is lost in the mind before the first shot is fired; the civilization surrenders in its stories before its temples fall. As the saying goes: “He who believes he is defeated is defeated already. He who believes he can win has already begun.” Hindu society must stop the drip. Reclaim the narrative. Restore the belief. Or bleed out — slowly, silently, and entirely by volition.

1:42 P.M.


Nageswara ji; you are wrong.

Of course, in the last line, you hit the nail on the head: “Reclaim the narrative. Restore the belief. Or bleed out – slowly, silently, and entirely by volition”.

And there are many pieces of pure truth (repeated hitting of the nail on the head) in what you write: “A slow invisible mental haemorrhaging is underway through the relentless de-Hinduization process: a drip-by-drip erosion of cultural confidence, historical pride and civilizational identity. Temples are reduced to tourist sites, scriptures to museum pieces, and Sanskrit to a “dead language”. The youth are taught….apology instead of assertion. And the sinister role of the #Pseudo-Hindutva Sangh Parivar in this process is no mean. What began as a movement to awaken Hindu consciousness has in many quarters devolved into ritualistic rhetoric and political opportunism, draining the very vitality it claims to protect. Instead of bold reclamation, there is bureaucratic control. Instead of bold reclamation, there is bureaucratic control. instead of intellectual revival, there is sloganised stagnation. The drip continues: one compromised narrative, one silenced voice at a time. Fear alone can weaken the body, a family or a people. Hope alone can restore it. Belief can kill but it can also heal, build, rise and overcome. In life, many people and communities, and societies lose long before they fail because they convince themselves they can’t succeed. The battlefield is lost in the mind before the first shot is fired; the civilization surrenders in its stories before its temples fall. As the saying goes: “He who believes he is defeated is defeated already. He who believes he can win has already begun””.


If you are absolutely right in all this, and in fact you are hitting the nail on the head, why am I saying “Nageswara ji; you are wrong”?

Because, although you are basically and in general right when you say: A single person can die from imagined bleeding; an entire community can collapse from imagined defeat. When a society or people believes it is doomed, it begins to unravel even before the real blows land. Not because survival is impossible, but because collective belief in failure makes it so”, you are wrong in this particular context.

Look around you with open eyes. You will see that most people (those who love Hinduism and want to see it not only survive but succeed and win through, as well as those who hate Hinduism and want to see it destroyed) actually believe Hindus are winning through. There is no “collective belief in failure”; or, if there is, there is to a very much greater extent a “collective belief in ultimate victory under BJP/Modi”.

And this is far more dangerous. Blind “belief” in anything is dangerous. What is required is not “belief” in ultimate victory but “awareness and consciousness” of the actual facts and situation and an “unswerving determination to fight it out and win through”: the desire to snatch victory out of the jaws of defeat, and not to complacently believe that we are winning (“everything is in good hands”) and can take it easy. What is required is not “faith and belief in victory” which manifests itself as “faith and belief in individuals, parties and organizations”, but “faith and belief in principles, and in the truth, over faith and belief in individuals, parties and organizations”. We must fight not because Hinduism is winning through: it is not! We must fight because Hinduism is indeed being set on the path of defeat by the BJP and Modi,        

Nageswara ji, I am a very great fan and admirer of yours, and I can understand the mental turmoil which is gripping you. The same turmoil is gripping me and all true Hindus who care for the future of Hindus, Hinduism and Indian culture and civilization.

You write: “The youth are taught shame instead of reverence for their history, religion, culture and civilization”. Except in specific cases (the RSS chief asking RSS swayamsevaks to eat beef in order to win the hearts of beef-eating “dalits”! Or politicians playing reservation politics) this is not fully correct. True, this government is accelerating the process of westernization (in the name of modernization and development) to the extent where an increasing (and increasing in geometric progression) percentage of the youth are becoming purely westernized and adopting a mercenary and indifferent attitude towards Indian heritage, but at the same time increasing number of youths are also becoming more proud of their history, religion, culture and civilization. Both the trends have always been there in India (even, I remember, in my youth in the sixties and seventies) but they covered only the well-informed or educated (or consciously traditionalistic vs. consciously rebellious) sections among the populace, and there was a huge mass of youths who were so uninformed about everything that they had no particular opinions. Now, with the massive onslaught of information technology and addictive social media platforms, and with open clashes between nationalism (unfortunately often just jingoistic-nationalism or vyakti-bhakti instead of true informed nationalism) and wokism, both the opposite sides are increasing in number, and the number of uninformed youths are increasingly joining one or the other side. It is difficult to say who will win this battle of perceptions.

It is heartening in this situation that there are people like you who will fight for Hinduism and for the Truth through thick and thin. If you are doing it in the belief that Hinduism will ultimately triumph, or in the belief that believing that Hinduism will ultimately triumph will lead to actual victory, all my best wishes are with you. But, as you yourself put it in your above tweet, “Belief can kill but it can also heal”. Unfortunately, the majority of “Hindus who think as Hindus” have a belief which “can kill” rather than a belief which “can heal”: they have belief in the power of bhakti (bhakti  towards individuals and parties, and not towards truth and principles).

I myself believe that Hinduism will be defeated and that nothing can save India. I have realized that there is nothing that I can really do about it, but that does not and will not stop me from trying till my last breath. But neither will I let it spoil my health. I console myself with the following selfish realization (which I expressed out of pique in a recent article, but then suddenly realized that it was actually true!):

I know positively now that India, in a hundred years, will be an Islamic state with a sizable Christian minority and a slightly smaller Hindu minority (consisting of different caste groups fighting it out amongst themselves). But unless all my above articles are completely wiped out from all records and memory with Orwellian “1984”-like efficiency, the OIT will still prevail. Who knows: maybe Islamic India will be proud of being the Original Homeland of the IE languages (most of Indo-European Europe also having become Islamic by then)? After all, Pakistan does claim a history of 5000 years from the Harappan Civilization onwards: and the “Aryan” question is purely one of Language, not of Religion, Philosophy, Cosmology or Race!


Postscript added 11 November 2025 night:

I just saw this latest news about the newly formed Mata Vaishno Devi Medical College, funded by the donations given by Hindus to the Vaishno Devi temple, which in its first batch of medical students, allotted 42 of its 50 seats to Muslims, 7 to Hindus and 1 to a Sikh.

What do you think a true Hindu should feel: a sense of Hindus being defeated and a strong desire to fight against this, and against the BJP which is allowing all this to happen? Or a sense that Hindus are winning and a strong desire to ignore or downplay the issue, or to whitewash the BJP government which has been ruling India for 11 years and has not even wanted, or pretended to want, to do anything to correct (what Anand Ranganathan ji correctly called) the “Eighth-Class Citizens and victims of State-Sanctioned Apartheid” status of Hindus in India? I assure you that an overwhelmingly large section of the second group (i.e the BJP supporters) will tell you that they are still steadfast in their belief that the BJP is taking Hindus to victory, and that people who see this above incident as wrong or depressing are people who are suffering from a feeling of “imagined defeat” and who have no faith in the future of Hinduism, and who are therefore dragging the Hindus towards defeat!

It is not blind “belief” (either in the future of Hinduism or the direction that events are taking) that Hindus need: it is clarity and honesty of perception, vision and purpose, and a determination to change the direction in which things are moving.


Post-postscript 12 November 2025 morning:

I just found out that a blast took place in Delhi. The following news report is interesting in the light of the above postscript about the use of Hindu temple funds under the Modi regime. Is it an omen of the bright future in store for India and Hindus?

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/delhi-car-blast-who-was-mohammad-umar-the-jk-doctor-driving-the-car-that-exploded-near-red-fort/articleshow/125243121.cms 


Post-post-postscript 12 November 2025 morning:

Nageswara Rao ji, In the midst of all your very correct criticisms of the RSS-BJP Quisling Phenomenon, and of the Breaking India Forces, why do you take time off to attack Savarkar and our identity name “Hinduism”?

https://x.com/MNageswarRaoIPS/status/1988145629881921632 

Savarkar is the greatest Indian political figure ever, although Ambedkar was often greater than him in his more correct analysis of many particular subjects (e.g. the Partition of India):

https://talageri.blogspot.com/2023/01/dr-babasaheb-ambedkar-much.html 

And Hinduism, which seems to irk many proponents of Hindutva, is the correct name of our religious and civilizational identity. “Sanatan Dharma” is a very modern and artificial, and even pretentious, name (at least for our religious and civilizational identity) not found in any ancient or medieval text: 

https://talageri.blogspot.com/2024/04/hindu-dharma-or-sanatana-dharma.html



8 comments:

  1. Hello, Shrikant ji,
    Thanks you for this insightful article. In one of your previous articles on Savarkar (in reference to his critique by Shri Rao), I had made the following comments:
    (Article name : Shourie, Savarkar, M. Nageswara Rao and Hindutva)

    *********************************************************************
    COMMENT 1:
    Thank you for writing this most logical article, Shrikant ji.

    When I was translating into Hindi your article titled "Hindu Dharma or Sanātana Dharma?" (published Monday, 29 April 2024), a few pertinent questions came to my mind. Most of them are already answered by this current article of yours. I would still like to document them, just in case you feel they need addressing in future.

    1. To summarise "who is a Hindu" and "what is Hinduism", the last paragraph of your present article is essentially noteworthy. However, several prominent pro-Hindu (the genuine kind, not the party-kind) have expressed their difference of opinion with the said definition, Mr. Rao being one of them. Mrs. Ritu Rathor being another.

    2. To these prominent faces of the pro-Hindu cause, it appears that the following folks do not classify as Hindus:
    2.1 People born in Hindu families, but not practising any of those rituals now that are described in the Smriti or Puranic texts. Example - Hindu-born people who self-describe themselves as atheists or agnostics (Dr. Anand Ranganathan seems a suitable representative example).
    2.2 Hindu-born people who now classify themselves as Arya Samajis, or any other sect that denies the Purana-described part of Hinduism.
    2.3 Buddhists, Jains, Sikhs
    2.4 People who have never practised Vedic or Puranic Hinduism, but are not Muslims, Christians, Jews, Buddhists, or Parsis, either. Such as tribals of Arunachal (or even those of Andaman islands, about whom I am really curious; your definition would cover them too, right?)
    2.5 Indians who were born in Muslim, Jew, Christian, Parsi, families, who have given up their previous religion now and have NOT accepted any other religion, e.g. Ex-Muslims.

    3. So, the definition of Mr. Rao, Mrs. Rathor, and some other Hindus EXCLUDES a huge amount of population, which WILL be called Hindu by your definition, by that of the Indian constitution, and even by the standards of Dr. Koenraad Elst's work "Who is a Hindu".
    As Mr. Rao has hinted at (not clear-cut defined) and as I could gather from his past speeches (and those of Mrs. Rathor), Hinduism is what's prescribed in the Shastras and what's laid down by the Shankaracharyas. Anyone not adhering to that is a non-Hindu.

    If you feel it is necessary to set the record straight, definition-wise speaking, then several of your readers would benefit from your views on what you feel on the above categories (2.1 to 2.5) being classified as Hindus, As far as I understand, they would qualify based on your definition and accurately so.

    Also, if a separate name is required to define Shastra following Hindus (what Mr. Rao and others would say is a litmus test for being a HIndu), then that should be defined, shouldn't it? The larger term Hindu should be reserved for defining the entire sample set qualifying as per the definition of the Indian constitution, again, accurately so.

    Even if this comment does not deserve a detailed article, it would help immensely to know whether the overall direction this comment hints at, is accurate, or to know, how accurate it is.

    Thank you again, for writing this current article.

    **************************Old Comment 1 ends******************

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. **************************Old Comment 2 begins****************
      COMMENT 2:
      Namaste, Shrikant Ji. In continuation to the above comment, I would like to share that Mr. Rao has formalised his definition of "Who is a Hindu?" with a little more clarity in a recent tweet of his (link below). The text of the said definition is as follows :

      ***************************************************************
      "Who is a Hindu?

      A Hindu can be defined by belief in core concepts such as Brahman (in all its manifestations, for divinity is all pervasive), Karma (the law of cause and effect), Punarjanma (the cycle of rebirth), Rta (cosmic order, associated with duties like Pitru Rina, Deva Rina, Guru Rina, Nara Rina, and Bhuta Rina), and Purushārtha (the four aims of life: dharma, artha, kāma, and moksha), while following any path, sect, or tradition within Sanatana Dharma, also known as Hindutva (as coined by Chandranath Basu in 1892), such as Bhakti, Jñāna, Yoga, Tantra, Animism, Folk or Nature-worship that are aligned with one or more of these metaphysical principles, while rejecting atheism, heterodoxies, and theologies that contradict its metaphysical core.

      M. Nageswara Rao IPS (Retired)
      Former Director, CBI"
      ***************************************************************

      You have clarified you stand on the subject "Who is a Hindu" and "Hinduism vs Sanatan Dharma (which terms is more accurate)" etc. in your previous posts. Mr. Rao's intentions towards Hindus, Hinduism and Equal Hindu Rights are noble, as you, too, have noted in your articles in the past. However, his definition is likely to exclude several noted Hindus like Savarkar, Anand Ranganathan, perhaps the Vedic and pre-Vedic societies too (?), for, transmigration and reincarnation -- as your article on "Rebirth or Transmigration in the Rigveda", (20 March 2023) notes -- could very well have been post-vedic developments.

      Anyway, I wanted to bring Mr. Rao's definition to your notice.

      Warm regards.
      **************************Old Comment 2 ends***************

      Delete
    2. Thus, some aware Hindus (who know the reality of the so-called "Hindu party") do not consider Savarkar a great Hindu. In fact, based on Shri Rao's definition (referenced above), Savarkar would be what Shri Rao calls HINO (Hindu in Name Only) [A term he uses in many of his tweets for people with Hindu names but otherwise not qualifying his definition].

      Anyway, I have great regards for his and Ms. Rathore's efforts to raise Hindu awareness, but their definition of a Hindu is different from the one in the Indian constitution (which you referenced as the accurate definition in one of your talks and article series (titled : "Are Indian Tribals Hindu?")

      Anyhow, sorry about the long thread. I feel this could explain why some of these aware Hindus (traditionalists?) dislike Savarkar. To them, his efforts towards Indian Freedom Struggle (and uniting Hindus) are superseded by his disservice to Hinduism [by using the term Hindutva (and attaching some anti-shastric practices, like violating the Varnashram dharma, to it) to unite Hindus].

      Delete
    3. To me also, like yourself, Savarkar remains the most important Hindu figure of his times. Although in summation, if we extend the timeline to the whole of 20th century), it's possible that Sita Ram Goel may rank slightly higher than Savarkar, in my personal list of visionary Hindu thinkers, mainly for absolute clarity in thoughts, and secondly, for raising a team of thinkers with the same (or similar) clarity and sharpness.

      Delete
    4. Shikhar Nanda ji. thank you for your detailed comments.

      At one point, you asked whether the Andamanese islanders were Hindus: in my article on the Andaman islands, (quoting earlier books an articles) I pointed out: "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". In another article I also pointed out that the Andamanese represent the oldest form of "Hindus" in India.

      It is sad that people like Tilak, and now Nageswara Rao and Ritu Rathaur, want to become the Hindu versions of the Vatican authorities, and decide which rituals or dogmas are necessary to be followed for someone to be considered a Hindu, and which people, based on their not following these rituals or dogmas, are to excommunicated intellectually from the right to be called or considered Hindus. Ironical, since Nageswara Rao in fact rejects the word Hindu itself. Ambedkar followed the correct definition.

      i called Savarkar and Ambedkar the two greatest political figures of the twentieth century in many articles. Ambedkar soars up above everyone else because he is the only one who pointed out that for the "Muslim problem" in India to end forever, a peaceful exchange of population was imperative in 1947. In future, when India becomes a Muslim country, he will be remembered as the only visionary who foresaw this contingency, and whose advice could have saved Hindu India.

      Sita Ram Goel cannot be compared with Savarkar. Savarkar was the (one of the two) greatest political figures of the 20th century, Sita Ram Goel was the greatest Hindu intellectual of the 20th century. But, sadly, Nageswara Rao actually gets his prejudice against Savarkar from Sita Ram Goel (as I may be pointing out in a future article on my blog, unless Koenraad Elst can get that article on Sita Ram Goel's pre-1992 mail to me published elsewhere).

      Delete
    5. In my article "Are Indian Tribals Hindus", I had written as follows:

      "The fact is, Hinduism can never be in true conflict with any other religion (other than the two predator Abrahamic religions which themselves choose conflict with all other religions) since it has no particular God, Ritual or Dogma to impose on the followers of other religions. In itself, Hinduism contains the seeds of every kind of philosophy, and is comfortable with all streams of thought, and not necessarily to do with the worship of “Gods”. In Hinduism, we find all kinds of atheistic and materialistic philosophies, the most well known being the Lokayata philosophy of Charvaka, who believed that there is only one life, that there is no such thing as an afterlife, or heaven or hell, or rebirth, and that our only purpose in life should be to maximize our pleasures and minimize our pains. The very basic texts of Hinduism contain the seeds and roots of agnostic philosophies, from the Rigvedic Nasadiya Sukta (X.129. 6-7, which says: “Who verily knows and who can here declare it, whence it was born and whence comes this creation? The Gods are later than this world's production. Who knows then whence it first came into being? He, the first origin of this creation, whether he formed it all or did not form it? He whose eye controls this world in highest heaven, he verily knows it, or perhaps he knows not.”) to the Upanishadic speculations which reject everything, after deep discussion, with the phrase “neti, neti”: “not this, not this”, i.e., “no, this is still not the ultimate truth”. And then of course, there is every kind of deistic, henotheistic, pantheistic, polytheistic, and every other kind of -theistic philosophy, including even (but not exclusively) monotheistic philosophy (minus the hatred of “other” false religions and false Gods, and the concepts of permanent Heaven for believers and Hell for non-believers, characteristic of Abrahamic monotheism).

      This is not to say that intolerant strands are not found in Hindu texts: among the countless philosophies that flowered within Hinduism there could be found stray voices of intolerance and hatred, but they are just that: stray voices in the wilderness, which never became the voices of mainstream Hinduism, unlike in the Abrahamic religions, where they represent the Only Voice.

      Hinduism thus represents the opposite end of the spectrum from the Abrahamic religions: of the four possible attitudes towards other religions and religious beliefs (respect, tolerance, indifference and hatred), Hinduism represents respect for all other religions and streams of thought and philosophy, while Christianity (as also Islam) represents hatred. This is the central thread of Hinduism: even the Manu Smriti enjoins that when a king wins a victory over an enemy king and enters his (i.e. the enemy) kingdom, the first thing he must do is to pray and worship at the feet of the deity of that king and kingdom. The Bhagawad Gita, even as it asks Arjuna (and presumably mankind in general) to abandon all other dharmas (i.e. duties, not religions) and surrender to the Supreme Entity (an abstract concept although nominally represented by “Bhagwan Shrikrishna” here), assures him that whatever form of worship he indulges in, that worship reaches Him (i.e. that Supreme Entity) and Him alone – a far cry from the “One True” God and “One True” form of worship as opposed to other “false” Gods and “false” forms of worship classified by Christianity (and Islam)."

      Delete
    6. Namaste Shrikanth ji,

      Thank you so much for your detailed replies, and also for referencing that article on the Andamanese islanders. I think you’ve answered the question I had in those earlier comments — and, in a happy coincidence, your response aligns exactly with what I had anticipated. I’m grateful for that.

      Moving forward from there, regarding your comment about a “Hindu version of the Vatican,” I feel that such an idea is, in fact, the very opposite of what it means to be Hindu. From what I’ve understood through your writings — and also from other authors of Voice of India — if there is one defining trait of being Hindu, it is precisely not claiming sole supremacy over the world or over other belief systems (or the absence thereof).

      Throughout its long history, Hinduism has repeatedly shown that whenever a sect begins claiming exclusive supremacy — that “my way is the only way” — other sects eventually balance it out and remind it that it is just one among many paths. As you once described beautifully in one of your articles (the title escapes me at the moment), Hinduism is like a person who has reached the mountaintop and can see that many different paths lead to the same summit. So yes, any claim to sole supremacy is, as you might say, as un-Hindu as it gets.

      I also agree with your assessment that Savarkar and Ambedkar were two of the greatest political figures of the 20th century. I had the good fortune of reading Ambedkar’s Pakistan or the Partition of India, though I must say it remains the most difficult book I’ve ever read! I do have one question regarding it. Ambedkar clearly understood the Muslim problem — how assimilation with other communities was extremely difficult, perhaps even impossible. But when we talk about the idea of a population exchange at the time of Partition, and when we attribute that view to Ambedkar, do you think he was advocating population exchange for the entire subcontinent (India and present-day Pakistan), or only for the bordering provinces?

      Despite the dense language of his book, my sense was that he was referring mainly to an exchange between neighbouring regions, not across the whole geography. Still, he was remarkably clear about that “oil and water don’t mix" kind of rigidness of Prophetic Monotheism.

      Delete
    7. Thank you also for sharing that insight about how Goel ji’s thoughts may have influenced Shri Nageshwar Rao ji’s present views on Savarkar. One thing I’ve realized from reading Voice of India authors is that it’s far wiser to assess ideas and deeds, rather than assess people. Gandhi, Ambedkar, Savarkar — all of them did some things right and some not so right, like all of us. In Hindi, there’s a saying: "vyakti nahi, ukti" — “judge not the person, but what they said (or did).”

      That, I feel, is a more accurate and balanced way to evaluate individuals — and it also saves us from one of Hindu society’s long-standing weaknesses: hero worship. So, instead of worshipping people, it’s better to study and learn from what they said or did.

      I knew Goel ji had a soft corner for Mahatma Gandhi, but I didn’t realize he had such specific views on Savarkar that later shaped Shri Rao’s position. Thank you for sharing that — only someone like you, who was part of the Voice of India inner circle, could provide that perspective. I believe you, Koenraad Elst, and David Frawley are among the few scholars alive who directly witnessed and carried forward that intellectual tradition.

      Lastly, Shrikant ji, I must say whatever you write on social, cultural, or political subjects (and on music) truly serves as a lighthouse for several readers like me. I hold your work in the same regard as that of the early Voice of India stalwarts — Sita Ram Goel ji and Ram Swarup ji.

      Thank you for continuing to be that guiding light, and I look forward eagerly to your forthcoming articles.

      Warm regards,

      Delete