Foolishness Of Intellectual Fascists Like Guha

Rakesh Sinha writes: 

The Doordarshan telecast of Mohan Bhagwat’s traditional Vijayadashami address has triggered a mini ‘outrage’ in certain political and intellectual quarters. The government has been pilloried for ‘using majoritarianism’. Those crying murder include cricket writer-turned-historian Ramchandra Guha, whose origins—both ideological and political—lie in anti-RSSism, patronised by a system that practised intellectual fascism.

Formed in 1925, RSS has grown in ideological and physical reach. Intriguingly, the discourse has centred only on RSS as a body, rather than its ideology. But every negative practice carries some positive aspects. The anti-RSS untouchability turned it into an idea whose reach has exceeded its organisational boundaries, something the secularists fail to comprehend.

The outrage at DD’s telecast of Bhagwat’s speech reflects secularists’ twin agony. First, the Sarsanghchalak’s speech carried messages transcending geographical and ideological limits. He raised fundamental questions—erosion of values in life, growing consumerism and its side-effects like deconstruction of the family. Sociological metamorphosis of this degenerative kind is today a world worry. Be it former British PM John Major or Japanese leadership of the 80s and 90s, all had earlier cautioned their societies against becoming individualistic and mechanical and neglecting family.

Bhagwat touched the hearts of common people who find a sea of difference between what they heard from him and the Sangh’s image the patronised intellectuals and media projected. This is uncomfortable for such propagandist intellectuals. Their de-legitimisation, if people begin judging from their own intellect rather than the eyes and ears of durbar intellectuals like Guha, is worrying. People like Guha serve the cause of non-BJP parties, enjoying their patronage in return. Most JNU and Delhi University’s social science faculties, at least till the 90s, were directly or indirectly linked to the Communist parties and Nehruvian ideology.  They are anything but independent intellectuals.

Where were these worthies when every second day DD news and private channels aired concocted malice against RSS for its alleged involvement in terrorism? It is this crowd that legitimises such concoction. It is sheer bankruptcy to compare Bhagwat with the Christian clergy or imams. Intellectuals of the Mutual Appreciation Club have blatantly used government agencies, whether DD news or National Book Trust, to promote their ideological siblings. 

Are these ‘intellectuals’ unaware of the fact that not less than 80 consultants were appointed in Doordarshan by the erstwhile UPA regime with hefty salaries? Most, if not all, belong to the same ‘secularist’ fraternity. Doordarshan has to be professional; if it wants to survive, it has to adhere to the market and the parameters of independent news telecasting.

The RSS’ Vijayadashami function was telecast by prominent private channels. Were they afraid of the Sangh? Most of them are known for their anti-RSS bias. DD acted professionally; morally and legally justified. The same DD news, just before the elections, edited Modi’s interview, deleting some of its parts, obviously upon 10 Janpath’s orders. No ‘intellectual’ then raised the issue of ethics or autonomy.

Bhagwat’s speech is significant from another dimension too. He cautioned the nation against Chinese attempts to destabilise India’s economy by using the tool of dumping. A survey reveals that the maximum negative impact of Chinese dumping is on Muslim artisans and traders. Bhagwat redefined Swadeshi in the present context. Chinese goods, like British goods in 1907, are the curse of the Indian economy. Bhagwat has not opposed legitimate trade between the two countries, but only illegitimate economic activity. The Sangh’s appeal against China naturally angers a section of ‘intellectuals’ who are obliged to Beijing. RSS, however, represents the India of over 10,000 years; not the India after 1947, or the immediate future of five years, but of posterity.

Sourced from:

http://www.newindianexpress.com/columns/Bhagwat%E2%80%99s-Speech-Rage-Reflects-Secularists%E2%80%99-Agony/2014/10/05/article2461832.ece

BJP Pushes Marxists to The Walls In Kerala

Balbir Punj writes





The good news from Kerala is that the political wind in the state, which has for decades alternated the Marxist-led front LDF and the Congress-led UDF in government, is now in the process of choosing a new path. An HT report from Thiruvananthapuram read: “A bandh called by Sangh Parivar outfits on Tuesday in protest against the hacking of an RSS leader crippled normal life in Kerala.”

The intensity of the protest reflects the depth of sympathy of Keralites to the victim and his party in the changing political pattern there.

E Manoj of the RSS was hacked to death in the Malabar region where the Marxists have been running riot and the RSS-BJP was the only force resisting the communist diktat.

The pattern of the killing carried in every respect the signature of the Marxists. They don’t shoot their political opponents. They hit them hard and then hack them part by part using sharp local sickles or butcher knives. They do it in daylight and often in public places. The barbarism is meant to convey a message—crossing the Marxist line is inviting such medieval “punishment”. The Marxist ideology, like the Islamist one, authorises its followers to be prosecutor, judge and executor rolled into one. As in the badlands of Syria-Iraq or Nigeria, here too they would make a public show of their barbarism.

In fact, the Marxists followed the same procedure when they waylaid and cut to pieces one of their own, T P Chandrashekharan, two years ago after the man had left the CPM and floated a rival political outfit. Several leaders of the Marxist party have been convicted for the murder lately.

That was not the only murder that the Marxists committed in the state. We are not talking of the murders of RSS workers and leaders. The Marxists had put their own dissenters’ neck on the block. In the wake of “TP’s” hacking, another Marxist leader, one Mani, boasted that the party had drawn up a list and one by one the people in the list would be eliminated.

The boast led to his being booked for promoting hatred but interestingly, the party did not distance itself from the claim of one of its leaders even after the intellectuals of Kerala expressed horror at such boasting.
For several decades now, the RSS-BJP had emerged as the only force that came forward to stop the Marxists from imposing their diktat on the hapless people. The political rivals of CPM technically is the Congress party. But the party leaders sought safety in avoiding direct confrontation with the Marxists.

In the last 20 years, the Marxist party was getting cosy with the jihadi elements of Malabar. In the 2009 general elections, Marxist boss Pinarayi Vijayan publicly allied with the Islamic extremist party, PDP, and its leader Abdul Nasser Madani, an accused in the jihadi conspiracy to target L K Advani in 1999 by planting bombs in Coimbatore on the path the BJP leader would take to address a public meeting.
It was a case of brothers in arms using violence to seize power, embracing each other. The Marxists’ rout in that election was later attributed to the public disgust at the alliance.

The pusillanimity of the Congress in facing up to this combine of Islamist secessionism and Marxist violence was exposed before the people of Kerala when instead of opposing Madani, it competed with the Marxists in making a hero out of him through open sympathy for his person and fending off all attempts of national security establishment to nab him and his partymen.

Several incidents in Kerala where the jihadists were accused of murder and violence, procuring arms and conspiring against the state like the massacre at Marad, saw the Marxists and the Congress closing their eyes at the growth of the jihadi underground.

For the local Congress, the appeasement of minorities was part of its national policy and the Muslim vote bank, especially in Malabar, was needed to balance the Marxist grass roots in the region. The electoral alliance between the Congress and the Muslim League was decades old.

Malabar, with its Muslim population, was the only place in India where the political Islam that demanded the country’s Partition survived after Independence and had strong links with Pakistan through many families that had its members in both countries. Much water has flowed down the Pampa river since then. The major Hindu organisations like the SNDP and the NSS have publicly expressed concern over the growing clout of the Muslim League, the continued rise of jihadi outfits and the threat to Hindus in many incidents of “love jihad”.

The Christian parties, like the two factions of the Kerala Congress, are also watching with concern the rise of the League and its economic as well as political clout from the large number of Muslim workers in the Gulf and the money earned they are sending to the state.

The rise of the Sangh Parivar’s support base isn’t confined to caste Hindus. Many sections of Christians are also gravitating towards it. Cardinal Cleemis, president of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of India, has openly praised prime minister Narendra Modi. An influential Dalit outfit, Kerala Pulayar Maha Sabha has invited Modi to address the 151st birth anniversary celebrations of their legendary leader Ayyankali during Onam.

This organisation was for long with the Congress. Its shift in support to the BJP must have disturbed the Congress. Obviously, the Congress claim of being the saviour of SCs (the elevation of K R Narayanan as the president of India, the rise of K J Balakrishnan as the CJI, for instance) is now dented. Early this year, the SNDP invited Modi before the general election to address their meeting and visit the retreat of social reformer Narayana Guru at Varkala.

So, the events leading to the Marxist murder of RSS leader Manoj clearly indicate that a good section of the people in Kerala is getting tired of the two fronts and considering other options. The Marxists have sought to send a warning message to the people through the murder. And the Congress has a vested interest in not pushing the Marxists to the wall by unleashing the police against the CPM’s practised violence.

The Centre has to read the signs in this context as the state could expect both the Marxists and jihadi outfits to plan more strikes to scare the people against the shift of allegiance to the BJP and to claw into the state in the wave of Islamist movements in the Gulf and Pakistan.

The Bloody SeeSaw Stance of Sickular Journalists

Rakesh Sinha writes

 

In every television discussion on the government or RSS, PM Narendra Modi draws support from unusual quarters. Indian secularists, who had unleashed the most contemptuous propaganda against him since 2002, left no stone unturned to demonise him by drawing parallels with Hitler, Mussolini and the Ku Klux Klan. They broadcast to the world community that the 2002 riots were ‘genocide’ and Modi its villain. Yet, their 10-year-long organised disinformation campaign could not stop the horizontal as well as vertical expansion of the RSS and BJP.

Finding the BJP’s march to power inevitable, secularists used their intellectualism to prevent Modi from emerging as the BJP’s PM candidate. They now donned the garb of well-wishers of the Sangh Parivar and NDA. Many of them openly demanded that the RSS block Modi. They invented a new political theology—Sangh Parivar minus Modi was “acceptable”. Yesterday’s ‘Hindu extremist’ L K Advani became their overnight favourite. But any documentation of newspaper clippings and writings in secularist academic journals from 1992 to 2002 will unravel their similar hatred for Advani. Their witnesses in the Liberhan Commission against Advani, and writings, painted him as responsible for fanning communal riots leading to killings of hundreds of people during his Rath Yatra.

After 2002, Advani was supplanted by Modi as the ‘Hindu extremist’. The 2014 verdict, however, has exposed secularists’ intellectualism and their shallow perception of realities. This has made them change their tune vis-à-vis Modi; they’ve now begun patting him for his developmental agenda, something they never did during his chief ministership of Gujarat. Rather, they ridiculed his Gujarat Model. This overnight volte face shows their sheer opportunism.

Secularists have reversed their political theology and rearticulated their perspective towards Sangh Parivar and Modi. Now, Modi-minus-Sangh Parivar is acceptable to them. They now use the developmental agenda as their mask to deride the Sangh Parivar for allegedly trying to “divert the government” from its developmental agenda.

How does any debate on secularism or the nature of India’s nationalism disrupt policies for the poor, unemployment or Foreign Direct Investment? In fact, ideological discourses are autonomous affairs as long as they are not sponsored by the state. The RSS has never been state-centric by temperament. Undoubtedly, its social actions and intellectual pursuit are bound to generate many questions to the secularist brigade who, instead of contesting them intellectually, has been betraying the autonomous zone of intellectualism by associating with ruling dispensations.

Secularists are uncomfortable with the ideological advancement of RSS. They still cling to their discredited thesis, as once proclaimed by Subhadra Joshi, leader of the Sampradayikata Virodhi Committee, “The ideology of the RSS is opposed to the values of nationalism and democracy as adopted by the Indian people in the constitution.”

This is not the first time. Secularists change their strategy every time people of RSS origin come to power. After Janata Party’s coming to power in 1977, these elements organised a seminar in January 1978 on the “character of RSS”. One of the speakers, Raghu Thakur, a socialist, said, “Let’s forget what happened in the past (during Emergency) because the danger RSS poses today and for the future is too serious to allow any loss of time in mutual arguments”. The seminar, however, also witnessed dissent from CPI(M)’s Zahoor Siddiqui who countered those who were projecting RSS as a threat to democracy and secularism. “It was not RSS that imposed the Emergency. There was no Golwalkar at Turkman Gate, Muzaffarnagar or Pipli,” he said. The present dilemma of Indian secularists is obvious with their demands for an ideological ceasefire.