Indian Express is breathless in rubbishing the recent speech of Prime Minister Narendra Modi in the Parliament that “democracy in India wasn’t the work of Pt. Nehru….but that it was in ragon (veins) of Indians.” In last one week, Ashutosh Varshney and D.N. Jha have hogged Express’ edit pages to sneer at the Prime Minister and swoon at Pt. Nehru as the reason India has democracy.
We know too well the design of such anti-India forces to blacken our glorious heritage. You call them stooges of Western powers (for whom democracy originated from Greece) or the lackeys of Left (sworn enemies of Hinduism) but never forget the vileness of these forces. They don’t mean good of you or me or our future generations.
Varshney defines democracy as one of elected governments and universal adult suffrage, a typical Western notion. Who are we to tell him that Pt. Nehru’s own mentor, Mahatma Gandhi took a dim view of such a democracy! Gandhi saw better merit in “Republics of Village” – a direct democracy rather than a representative democracy—in which India abounded.
Varshney’s second line of propaganda is that ancient India may have had Councils (Gana or Sangha) through which a King governed but a common citizen had no role to play. Here’s what the eyewitness account of Alexander’s campaign to India in the 4th Century BCE by a Greek historian Arrian states: “ (there were) free and independent Indian communities at every turn”.
Greek writer Diodorus Siculus mentions that he mostly came across cities in India which practiced a democratic form of government.” The reference was from an account of no less than Greek traveler Megasthenes who had covered the entire Northern India and went as far as Patliputra.
Varshney probably hasn’t heard of Kautilya or his Arthashastra in the 4th Century BCE which mentions “janapadas” (Republic) where craftsmen, traders and agriculturalists had their guilds and wealth earned from trade ran the political process.
Panini, in his Sanskrit Classic “Ashtadhyayi” mentions the process of decision-making in politics. He provides various terms for voting and decision making through voting. He also mentions that in these Republics “there was no consideration of high and low.” The Buddhist literature in Pali and Brahmnical literature in Sanskrit portray a complex scenario of different groups managing their own affairs.
Indeed, the non-Monarchical governments in India go back to Vedic times. Rig Veda (10/191/2) mentions that “all resources to all stake-holders must be distributed equally.”
As for Pt. Nehru and his democratic credentials, his very appointment as Prime Minister was as undemocratic method as you could come across in any world annals. Nobody voted for him, yet he was made Prime Minister after majority’s favourite Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel bowed to the tyranny of Mahatma Gandhi.
And before touting for “democratic” Pt. Nehru, Varshney also ought to have informed the readers that the first Prime Minister of India had indeed jailed Majrooh Sultanpuri for his poem which didn’t paint him in golden colours. No wonder, his daughter Indira Gandhi went a step further and imposed Emergency.
So much for “freedom of speech” and “freedom of expression” which Varshney calls essentials in democracy.
Kapil Sibal, former telecom minister in the UPA government, in an Oped article in Times of India (May 2, 2017) today, has urged “Asli Hindus” to distance themselves from Hindutva which, in his view, is nothing but fundamentalism in the name of Hinduism and mirrors intolerance, casteism and a sedition-happy government.
The trouble is Sibal saying so is like the devil quoting from the scriptures. He was the father of the notorious amended 66A section of the IT Act under UPA which could land anyone in jail for three years for “offensive” tweets. Anyone arrested had to apply for a bail under this cognizable offence.
The need for this draconian measure was to crush dissent against the corruption in the UPA government. A Jadavpur University Professor, Ambikesh Mohapatra, was arrested in April 2011 for merely forwarding on email a cartoon on Mamata Banerjee. Similarly, cartoonist Assem Trivedi, in solidarity with Anna Hazare’s crusade against corruption, was arrested and had to shut-down his website.
This was like an Emergency; a true muzzling of freedom of speech and expression. In the end, Supreme Court had to step in and squash the amended 66A Act, terming it “unconstitutional.”
This “unconstitutional” move went all the way up to your door, Mr. Sibal. It isn’t like Una, Dadri or Alwar where Modi government is being dragged for no role of their own.
Indeed, such outrageous were your moves and utterances as a minister, that Supreme Court had to intervene once again and bring the guilty to book. I of course am referring to the 2G Scam. It was you, as telecom minister, who rubbished all the investigations under the 2G spectrum scam, be it of Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG), CBI, Justice Shivraj Patil report, or by the one of telecom regulator, TRAI. You even made the absurd claim that your predecessor A. Raja’s spectrum allocation in 2008 caused no loss to the exchequer!!! It was only after Supreme Court bristled in anger that you had to buckle down. It’s a reminder to you readers that 2G scam was worth 170,000 crores.
After such a “distinguished” record as one against the dissent or contempt for authorities such as CAG and TRAI, don’t you think your moral stances are a little facile? Do I need to remind you of the “intolerance” of Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru against iconic poet Majrooh Sultanpuri who was put behind bars in Arthur Jail Road in Mumbai for a year for a rebellious poem penned by him? The poem went something like this:
“Aman kaa jhandaa is dharti pe
kisney kahaa lahraane na paae
ye bhii koii Hitler kaa hai chelaa,
maar le saathii, jaane na paae!
Commonwealth ka daas hai Nehru
maar le saathii jaane na paae!”
(Who has stopped the flag of peace from blowing in the air on this land? Is this someone a disciple of Hitler and we must not let him get away with this. Nehru is no better than a slave of Commonwealth and he ought not to be allowed to get away with it).
Do I need to remind you of the number of sedition cases which were filed while UPA was in centre? Or films which were banned by Congress? And who amended Article 19 (I) to rob people further of their freedom of speech?
This “freedom of speech” and “intolerance” nonsense against the Modi government which is being used to put them in a corner on the Hindutva issue isn’t cutting much ice with the voters of this country. “Asli Hindus” aren’t willing to be drugged any further by anti-India left-liberal-media factions. Newspapers like Times of India could reserve the best space in its edition for your harangues but trust me the people of this country don’t give a damn. Divide and rule won’t work in today’s India.
Let’s second guess the agenda of our English mainstream newspapers in next few weeks/months. My vote is: they would find a Kanhaiya of homosexual community and paint the town in LGBT colours. Amartya Sen and Vikram Seth would once again by on front pages and news channels. The human rights activists, the NGOs, some Foundation, Barack Obama or Melinda Gates, the New York Times, would worry about India’s “intolerance” and “freedom of speech.”
Yes, I know you would doubt it could happen. Despite 2.5 million registered homosexuals—there are millions more unaccounted for—homosexuality is a criminal activity in India, punishable under law. But a civil movement for this “repressed” section could never be outlawed. After all, some people in this country could get away with anti-India slogans and still not be found seditious.
Let’s first deal with the historical aspect of homosexuality in India before you and I raise the flag (pun intended). Hinduism is rather ambivalent on it (sigh! you lose a point here, the “tolerant” brigade). Rigveda says Vikriti Evam Prakriti (implying what is unnatural is also natural). Manusmriti. Kama Sutra devote enough space on it.
This was till the 19th century arrived. The British Empire now was all over India and England frowned on homosexuality. As a result, when India got its Indian Penal Code in 1860, Lord Macaulay inserted section 377 which brought in the concept of “sexual offence against the order of nature.” And so it has remained.
It would interest our “liberal” intellectuals to know that homosexuality in West, which they quote as a divine word, was illegal till early 1970s. The American Psychiatric Association (APA) declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder for the first time in 1973. The World Health Organization gave it a clean chit in 1990.
It all began when gay activists led a virulent protest against an APA convention in San Francisco in 1970. It was no different next year, supported as homosexual lobby was by very powerful and rich segments of the society. In 1973, APA removed homosexuality from the list of mental illness—though it didn’t go as far as to declare it normal.
It’s important to remember that there wasn’t any scientific breakthrough which suddenly made the world realize that homosexuals are normal. The health bodies simply caved in to raging fuss outside their offices.
IT WAS A POLITICAL DECISION AND THERE WAS NO SCIENTIFIC BASIS FOR IT.
Indeed, till it got away, homosexuality came under Paraphilia group which included sexual activity that is considered unnatural in psychology and sexology. It included pedopholia, sadism, masochism, sexual fetishness, exhibitionism, voyeurism, necrophilia and nymphomania.
Let’s deal with the scientific aspect of homosexuality. Wikipedia says that same sex attractions, feelings and behaviour are normal and “positive variations of human sexuality.”
By that token, pedophilia and incest should also be seen as “positive variations of human sexuality.” But the world is against pedophilia. Yes, I know you would say it’s not between adults and possibly not consensual and children must be saved. But if “positive variations of human sexuality” is the scientific word, than you can’t be jailed for entertaining pedophilic thoughts.
Who decides whether it’s right or wrong? Is the right-or-wrong definition absolute or arbitrary? One could only follow the convention—and thus only religious position could be the arbitrator. I have spoken about Hinduism. Let’s see what Christianity says: Since the fall, man has lost his original true nature and that his current fallen nature is the cause of his suffering…and it must reclaim his or her original nature.”
What is Sin? The official definition is “Missing the target or failing to act according to one’s true potential.” In other words, transgression of religious and moral law, especially when deliberate.
Homosexuals like to say they were born that way. So could be the opinion of pedophiles. It’s not a choice but a condition. A society which aims to protect children from pedophiles also give away these children to proven homosexuals who are now a couple and could adopt them. This is the same society which considers it to be a felony to possess naked, voyeuristic photos of children on your computer—but it has no compunction in giving away young children to homosexual couples. Pathetic logic!
If this “liberal, tolerant brigade” in India is upset that I am advocating pedophile, let me quote from their own scripture, i.e from the West. Frederic Mitterand, former French minister and nephew of the late President of France, Francois Mitterand, wrote a book called “The Bad Life” in which he confesses using boys in Thai brothels. At the time of the release of the book, MItterand was hailed for his honesty. France, as we know, has many homosexual politicians.
Richard Dawkins, world’s most famous atheist, has defended mild pedophilia. He says it does not cause lasting harm. There are animal brothels in Germany where sex is allowed with animals as a matter of “lifestyle choice.”
My reason for bringing in pedeophile is to contrast it with the absurdity of logic on homosexuality. I am neither a homosexual nor a pedophile. Nor do I approve of them. I am happily married for over two decades with two adult daughters. I don’t mind homosexuals but I don’t like the campaign to accept and applaud them. As I don’t expect them to give me a standing ovation for my preferences. Each to his/her own. If I disagree, don’t term it homophobia.
Majority of us don’t feel homosexuality is normal or positive. Most don’t say it in open to avoid trouble. Meanwhile homosexuals are portrayed as some kind of persecuted prisoners of conscience by the corporate media.
I like gender differentiation. I am not one of those “liberals” who find it sexist when you address a woman as “lady.” I don’t like when I am told men are not supposed to look masculine and females feminine. Not when it’s fashionable to be sissy in appearance—say such as Barack Obama and John Kerry. Gender differences in men and women give life its’ spice.
You don’t like gender differentiation? Then you are welcome to hurt your eyes in darkness which doesn’t make any differentiation. Why then you have pairfigure skating or mixed doubles with men and women as partners? In a real world, to a real child, traditional father and mother provide the necessary emotional nurturing.
The fact is, there is a multi-billion dollar industry in West which caters to sexually dysfunctional people. It’s a tool in West’s kit of destruction: like you have “tolerance,” “human rights” and “freedom of speech.” Like other tools, it’s used to spread unrest in stable societies. There, the God has been declared dead and all opinions on right and wrong dismissed as cultural. Thus they can bend, adapt and repackage the ideological agenda of the day. So killing unborn babies by the millions is right. Giving up kids to the “same sex couple” is right. Homosexuality is right. Animal sex is right.
The issue is they want their moral standards of the day to be followed by other countries, such as India and Russia, who have different sensibility on the subject. This tool is very conveniently spread by their agents (read media, NGOs, Foundations) in sovereign nations. The intended effect is the same as the one of “intolerance” and “freedom of speech” in India.
So I expect our English newspapers to rake it up soon. Some homosexual persecution or death and the streets of our Capital will have organized marches and media coverage of up to one month or more—like it’s happened to Kanhaiya.
Even though this issue logically can’t be put in front of Modi government’s door—since it’s a matter of judicial action—you could be sure a way would be found to portray the present government as “intolerant.”
The search for Kanhaiya among homosexuals must have already begun.