(This is a reprint from NewsBred).
I found myself blocked on twitter by Rajdeep Sardesai today.
My tweets to him have never been abusive; rarely personal even though there is good enough reason to be so since we shared the same newsroom in the Times of India in the 90s. But I understand that the “Freedom of Expression” is not a two-way street. Stupid, we aren’t meant to practice what we preach.
Still, I was obliged, conscience-wise, to peek into his tweets of the last four days. No, I wasn’t looking for his sermons on illegal Rohingyas. Or if he is disparaging about Bullet Train. Or if he is in the pack of the wolves dancing around the embers of Demonetization. Or if their creativity is still on its feet in stitching “Sangh Parivar” with the murder of Gauri Lankesh.
All the above issues are meant to convey their concern for India. How their heart beats for India’s proud history of welcoming refugees. How India’s economic slide kicks them in the guts. How their souls are scorched at the fanciful waste of Bullet Train. How they die a thousand deaths at the plight of “independent” journalists in today’s India.
Surely, such “conscience-keepers” of the nation would have shed a tear at the demise of Arjan Singh, Marshal of the Indian Air Force, in the Capital on Saturday. I wanted to check on Sardesai, if he has extricated himself from the morass of mud-slinging and spared a thought for the departed hero.
But I found myself blocked by Sardesai!!!
So I did the next best thing. I turned to Sagarika Ghose, his wife. Surely, the woman who has a new biography on Indira Gandhi to her name and thus, by inference, had time to research many wars of the 60s and 70s, would remember late Marshal Arjan Singh and his legendary deeds.
But there’s not a single tweet from Ms Ghose! (There of course is a retweet but that’s like registering a presence in a funeral). It’s so much like Congis–with whom her family has had a roaring stand–who rarely have had a great respect for our military heroes.
Remember the death of Field Marshal Sam Manekshaw on June 27, 2008? The then present UPA dispensation in the Centre, were all missing from the funeral of India’s greatest military hero. Neither President Pratibha Patil, supreme commander of our armed forces nor Prime Minister Manmohan Singh; neither the then defence minister A.K. Antony nor the three Service chiefs attended Manekshaw’s funeral.
Manekshaw’s various run-ins with the Indira Gandhi could be the reason. I am not sure if Ms. Ghose has it mentioned in her book—those loyals who have read it must inform me. Or the book has the facts that the 1971 War hero’s status and dues were held up for decades. (It was only due to the initiative of former President APJ Kalam that a cheque of Rs 1.3 crores was sent to the late Marshal on his deathbed.)
Next I logged on to Sitaram Yechury’s twitter account. He is another one who can’t see his beloved India going to pieces under the Modi regime. It’s another matter that those who protect India’s sovereignty are not quite sure of his time for them. He too wasn’t present, by all accounts, at Field Marshal Manekshaw’s funeral.
Yechury too hasn’t offered any condolence on Marshal Arjan Singh. All he has done is to question Modi government for its indifference to death of India’s “most senior serving military officer.” Indifference? Is the whining Communist leader indeed talking about Marshal Arjan Singh? Isn’t he aware that Arjan’s son Arvind Singh is overwhelmed at the present government’s response to his father’s death?
I next turned to two other Congress Seniors: Digvijaya Singh and Manish Tewari. The two have been much in news for their colourful vocabulary in public lately. Abusive like the drunk thugs you often find on the streets; with little association to decorative representative offices such as ones of former Chief Minister and Union Minister. Digvijaya predictably had no time for Marshal Arjan Singh’s death (does India-Occupied-Kashmir ring a bell?) And Manish Tewari? No prizes for guessing this one too.
You would expect these people to use Marshal Arjan Singh’s death as an opportunity to present their credentials as well-wishers of Indian army, and by inference India. They have often held the grouse that their patriotism has been questioned by Hindutava agents; that they are shown as anti-Indian armed forces. But doesn’t their lack of respect for Indian soldiers and heroes only confirm the impression?
Maybe they thought that Marshal Arjan Singh’s death has come at a wrong time. Only when they were going hammer and tongs against the Modi government, the death of war hero has allowed Modi to showcase his sincerity and respect for India armed forces. Only, when they had Modi pinned to the wall—or so they thought.
What’s a career without credibility in public life? And what delusion, like a she-Hindi author who painted Modi-praisers as no better than asses in recent days? Better by asses than filth-loving pigs.
Oh yes, and if anyone could update me on Rajdeep Sardesai on Marshal Arjan Singh.
Sagarika Ghose vomited.
By now, she is covered in her own filth. The stench, the nausea, the dribbling from the corner of her mouth has turned the toilet bowl into an acidic junk. The chunks of acidic creamy food, splattering out of her mouth has sprayed the carpet.
She is still reaching her fingers down her throat for a fresh round of throwing up. It’s a perverse joy and she is beyond help. She hopes it would breed enough viruses and insects which could infect the neighbourhood.
Anyone can see her bouts of gastritis, bulimia, ulcer etc. They are all byproducts of lies and hallucinations. Her puke is that the BJP in centre represents Hindutva terror, or tacitly approves it. It has let loose its goons. If Gauri Lankesh has been murdered; if homosexuality is not allowed; nor miniskirts; if (symbolic) guns are put on Kanhaiyas; or female reporters beaten up by lawyers—it’s violent Hindu nationalists. Proof? You must be kidding.
In her delirium, she implicitly claims that Islamists and Maoist terrorists are better than Saffron terror for the latter never owns up its crime. So Bajrang Dal, VHP, Bajrang Dal are worse than SIMI or Talibans. Who are rationalists to tell the pathetic woman that Bajrang Dal meets in the open; it has no sleeper cells. It doesn’t plan serial bombings. There has never been a single case of arms recovery from any of the Bajrang Dal cadre of offices. Does VHP ask its cadres to become suicide bombers? Bump off girls who want to attend school? Has Bajrang Dal or VHP ever advocated second grade citizenry for minorities?
So, how can we sanitize the environment of her grungy presence?
Its’ a desperate flailing from a sinking horror. Her best hope is rationalists would respond and regurgitate. Enough repetition, and words like beef, vande mataram, Gauri Lankesh would stick on the Hindutva shirts. To pass the verdict before the laws of the land dump it in garbage.
It’s a typical ploy of the Left, pseudo-sikulars, NGOs and imperialist forces. Have propaganda and create enough surround sound. Don’t allow the narrative to go beyond that matrix. It’s unimportant who wins or loses the argument. What they are aiming at is create association of individuals and issues towards a particular agenda; a mental image. Unceasing tirade is their weapon. The next layer builds upon the previous layer. Bury the truth below a yet again fresh layer. That’s how lies survive. Propaganda works. And vomiting becomes somehow desirable.
Humanity has always fallen for such ruse. Communities break up. Faultlines flare up. Violence happens. It just provides these vomit-ers with a fresh layer. Reason for them to dig fingers down their throats again.
We don’t have to fall for it.
We could be clever.
Dig up enough dirt on them.
Keep it in circulation.
Let the boot be on the other foot.
Amir Khusro is a legend for good reason. The Sufi giant of the 13th century had his Urs celebrated in Hazrat Nizamuddin dargah in Delhi on Saturday The Indian media hailed him as the champion of India’s unique “composite culture” which is under threat, in their vicious propaganda, by the BJP at the Centre.
Khusro deserves all the accolades for introducing “Urdu”, “qawaalis” the instruments of tabla and sitar and the musical genres of Khayal and Taraana in India. His ghazals, Masnavi (poems in Persians) and Rubai are landmarks. But don’t be a sucker to this “composite culture” nonsense.
Khusro was everything but the champion of “composite culture” over which Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru swooned in his Discovery of India. Nehru was just one in the long line of historians and academicians who created, swallowed and spread the bogus credentials of Khusro as a shining symbol of “composite culture.” We have all grown up reading in our school textbooks on Khusro and his “composite culture.” These “secularists” and their bastard child, Indian media, would invent new phrases but never criticize the Islamic intolerance as and when it occurred.
Dr. Rajendra Prasad, India’s first President, wrote: “The beginning of India’s composite culture could be traced to Amir Khusro’s efforts.”
Really? Do you see a neutrality in this mention by Khusro?
“Had not the law granted exemption from death by payment of poll-tax (jizia), the very name of Hind, root and branch, would have been extinguished.”
Do you see “composite culture” in Khusro’s below views on Hindu temples?
“There were many capitals of Devs where Satanism had prospered from the earliest times…but now with a sincere attempt the Emperor removed these symbols of infidelity.”
Khusro’s contempt for Hindu women below would never be mentioned in anything you read. Sample:
“The stone idols called Ling Mahadeo…on which women of the infidels (Hindus) rubbed their vaginas for (sexual) satisfaction…The Musalmans destroyed all the lingas..and the Deo Narain fell down.”
In Khusro’s view, Muslims were “master” and Hindu “slaves.” Sample:
“Turk is like a tiger and the Hindu a deer…Hindus exist for the sake of the Turks. Hindu happens to be a slave in all respects—it does not become one to scowl at a goat which is being reared for one’s meals.” (That’s why Mr. Saif Ali Khan, Hindus have taken an exception to you naming your son, Taimur, for his name is a symbol of Islamic atrocities against the original inhabitants of this land).
Do you see any sign of “composite culture” in these utterances of Khusro?
This is what perplexed famous historian R. C. Majumdar (who refused to write history as Indira Gandhi wanted at one time—By the way, does Sagarika Ghose mention this in her book on Indira?):
How come Khusro could never appreciate the architectural marvels of Hindus? Why his literary and artistic accomplishments contain no Hinu poetry, Puranic or Bhakti ideals, Upanishadic mysticism? Without such inclusion, could he be described as the rockstar of “composite culture”?
You might not have read of this all because there is an academic apartheid in India against those who go against the grain. Just make sure your children don’t fall to the nonsense by this devilish clique. These are inbreeding Huns in saddle, hell-bent on taking away your culture, pride, heritage–and in consequence your identity.
There is a new narrative by the DALALS (Devious Left and Lutyens Scribes). It’s not about the fresh round of communal violence against Hindus in West Bengal where the Mamta government is seen overtly as pro-Muslim. It’s not even about the Facebook post which was used as a handle to beat Hindus with. It’s about the constitutional propriety of Governors who are accused of acting at the Centre’s behest.
The usual suspects such as Indian Express (their edit today, see image) and Rajdeep Sardesai have dumbed down the reprehensible Bengal violence to a debate about how BJP-appointed Governors are causing mischief. They have dragged down the Tripura and Puducherry Governors to connect dots and conclude that India’s democracy is in peril.
This is not as much ingenuity as the brazen, brash conviction that their echo chambers would drown out any voice of reason. That nobody would question them, like how come Governor Ram Nath Kovind earned so unabashed a praise from Modi-baiter Nitish Kumar in Bihar?
Said Nitish: “Kovind has discharged his duties in an unbiased manner as the Bihar Governor. He has worked as per the Constitution and upheld the dignity of the Governor’s post.”
This from a Chief Minister of a state which handed over a humiliating defeat to Modi in 2015 Bihar assembly elections, just a year after the BJP’s euphoric triumph in 2014 General Elections.
These DALALS have also swept under the carpet the unequivocal support which West Bengal Congress state chief Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury has offered to Governor Keshari Nath Tripathi.
As per Chowdhury, he had no “valid reason” to demand Tripathi’s recall and said he had found the Governor to be a “thorough gentleman and affable person.”
Yet, these inconvenient truths don’t suit the DALALS. That these voices of conscience have come from bitter Modi foes matter least to them.
A few questions, which hopefully would drill a hole through their echo chambers and if nothing else alert citizens about these devious forces at work, are thus;
(a) What’s the exact nature of this conversation between Tripathi-Mamta? And if the DALALS are not privy to this private telephonic talk, what makes them pitch for Mamta and not Tripathi?
(b) While accusing BJP Governors for undermining democratically elected state governments, what makes DALALS give clean chits to Mamta, Arvind Kejriwal or Akhilesh Yadav governments who are under scanner from investigating agencies of the land? What makes them believe these leaders are upholder of democratic traditions?
(c ) Why these DALALS have no stance at all on this communal violence in West Bengal? Why they never call Mamta by name? Why this studious stand to avoid word “Mamta” all through their writings?
(d) Why no question has yet been asked to Mamta about her silence on the “triple talaq’ issue? Come on you champions of feminist causes. Don’t show your menstrual cramps.
(d ) With the known Jihadi presence in neighbouring Bangladesh, why these DALALS have not stopped to question the threat of Jihadis turning West Bengal as their base for further attacks on India’s sovereignty? Why this studious silence?
(e) Failing this, do they want a story similar to Kashmiri Pundits be repeated in Bengal? Have they paused and dreaded the consequence of such a migration? And its devastating effect on the India we know?
Instead of addressing these grave issues and questioning Mamta’s role through all this, these DALALS have trained their guns on Tripathi, an octogenarian without a whiff of controversy during his long career in public eye. An esteemed poet and writer, Tripathi’s commentary on The Representation of People Act, 1951 is still held in high regard.
The obfuscation by DALALS could have been comic if it was not this tragic. There could be no Ramchandra Guha or Pawan Verma invited on TV debates since the matter itself has been given a quite burial.
This is a reprint from NewsBred.
Guha, already a book old on Gandhi–“Gandhi before India”– will have his second one on the man next year. Apparently, the cottage industry on Gandhi is a useful tool for self advancement and setting up the political agenda in this country.
Guha’s peg is the recent reference of Amit Shah where the BJP president had called Gandhi the “Chatur Baniya.” This has Guha in an outrage even though he himself reminded readers of “residue of Bania upbringing” in Gandhi in his book.
Guha’s entire premise is built on the assertion that Gandhi didn’t differentiate between castes and he repeatedly asked Hindus to “disregard matters of caste in where they lived…”
Gandhi is larger than life to most Indians. That doesn’t mean he is above examination. A Hindu mind isn’t shy of evaluating his own Gods. There is no reason a Mahatma be exempt from such a scrutiny. Gandhi himself would’ve approved of such “experiments with truth.”
So let’s examine if Gandhi didn’t differentiate between castes. In his over two decades of stay in South Africa, Gandhi didn’t think Black Africans were worth his time. In 1893, he wrote to the Natal parliament saying that Indians were better “than savages of the Natives of Africa.” He supported more taxes on impoverished African people and turned a blind eye to the brutality of the Empire on Africans. He termed them “kaffirs” an extremely offensive racist slur.
No less than Gandhi’s grandson and his biographer, Rajmohan Gandhi, has acknowledged that Gandhi was “prejudiced about South African blacks.” Historian Patrick French wrote in 2013 that “Gandhi’s blanking of Africans is the black hole at the heart of his saintly mythology.” Today a large number of Africans view Gandhi as a racist vis-a-vis Black Africans. A revision in his stature is already underway. Last year his statue was banished from Ghana University in Accra after massive protests by professors over his racist stance.
Guha of course would hide such facts from our view. Closer home, one would be interested to find out Guha’s opinion on Gandhi’s role in the Khilafat Movement (1919-1924). Most of us don’t know about it as a sanitized history is propagated by Left-Liberal combine in whose company Guha clearly is comfortable.
At the end of the World War I in 1919, Ottoman Turkey lay beaten by the Allied forces. Their pretensions of being Caliphs of the Islamic world was in ruins. It got the hackles up of Muslim leaders in India. They formed a committee to force the British government to restore the Sultan. This in brief is known as the Khilafat Movement.
Gandhi and the Congress launched the non-cooperation movement in support of the Khilafat demand. It clearly was a quid pro quo move. Gandhi, in return, got the Muslim support. It helped him become the biggest political actor of the Indian stage. (Bal Gangadhar Tilak had died on August 1, 1920). Gandhi justified his move thus:
“I would gladly ask for the postponement of the Swaraj activity if we could advance the interest of the Khilafat.” So Swaraj, which meant self-rule, became a subordinate action compared to restoration of Caliphate in a faraway land!!! It never occurred to Mahatma how the natives would make sense of such a sympathy for the Muslim cause which had nothing to do with India’s reality.
Mohammad Ali, a prominent leader of the Khilafat movement, went further: “If the Afghans invaded India to wage holy war, the Indian Muhammadans are not only bound to join them but also to fight the Hindus if they refuse to cooperate with them.”
This clearly was not respect-all-castes approach. And what was Gandhi’s reaction to this all? He supported Mohammad Ali for being true to his religion! So much for caste-free politics and the spirit of nationalism. Over to Gandhi:
“I claim that with us both the Khilafat is the central fact, with the Maulana Mohammad Ali because it is his religion, with me because, in laying down my life for the Khilafat, I ensure the safety of the cow, that is my religion, from the knife of the Mussalman.”
Let’s leave cow for the moment as it is a more sensitive subject than Mahatma these days. It must be mentioned though that Gandhi diverted a substantial sum of money from the Tilak Swaraj Fund to the Khilafat movement.
Gandhi’s support for Khilafat led to Mopla Rebellion of 1921. (Moplas are a Muslim sect of Malabar in Kerala). Murder and rapine followed the failure of Khilafat. It soon became a full-scale rebellion. Civil authorities caved in and army had to be summoned. Khilafat flags were hoisted on police stations and government offices. It took seven months to put it down completely.
Guha’s subtle message is that all religions are the same. Hindus must not make any distinctions vis-à-vis Islam, Christianity and other religions. And by inference, Ahimsa, the cornerstone of Gandhi’s philosophy, must be internalized.
But religious distinctions are there for all to see. Hindus don’t follow one book like Koran or Bible. They don’t have one God like Islam and Christianity. There is no prophet or messenger who stands between the God and humanity. There is no central religious authority like Pope to them.
Every time you open a newspaper, you read a piece by Guha, Sagarika Ghose and their ilks who appeal to the pacifist image of Hindus. Their method to neutralize the majority is simple: beat them with the creeds of Mahatma and shame them on the untouchability ills of Hindu society. Hemmed in by such imagery, India hasn’t responded to million cuts which aggressive neighbours inflict on it regularly. Bleed India to death is this creed. The Break-India plot must be thwarted with rigour and alertness for the forces have shifted gears.
An Open Letter to Sagarika Ghose
I read your edit in Times of India today (April 26, 2017). You must remember me for I used to sit next desk to you in Times of India in the 90s. You might as well be remembering K.Dutta, then sport head, who I remember for one particular evocation: “Its better we laugh amongst ourselves and correct our copy than be a laughing stock to the world.”
Those at desk who ignore this wisdom and clear your copy without cuts aren’t your friends. At best they are fools or at worst, fellow conspirators. They let hacks like you write on subjects about which you knew nothing; and know nothing. If there was a sensible hand on desk, you could’ve been saved this public shame.
First, you start the piece as addressed to Liberal Hindus. I know there is another Hindu on your mind—the Internet Hindu which is a straight lift of the euphemism which presstitutes of the West reserve for Rajiv Malhotra. Don’t tell me that you haven’t heard of Rajiv or that Internet Hindu is your original.
You call upon these liberal Hindus (of your imagination!) to take on the “strident voices” who call for a “holy war” against other religions. Let me tell you no Hindu, yes No Hindu, liberal or illebral, want a “holy war” against other religions. If it was so, you would have heard the war-cry to change the name of “Allahabad” which continues to be one of the most pious holy places for Hindus. Or question the logic of “Lodhi Colony” or “Aurangzeb Road” given the “war” they carried out against Hindus and their temples. Why, even original “Kashi Viswanath Temple” in Varanasi was converted into a mosque and continues to be one to this day.
Hindus don’t want Hindu first. They want India first. But this simple narrative escapes you, either out of ignorance or plain mischief.
You further state that Hinduism has been an amiable religion from time immemorial. WRONG. Hindus were a splendidly martial people. Wish you had read any of the accounts of Greek writers who accompanied Alexander in his invasion of India and declared that very few in the world could match the courage or fortitude of Hindu warriors. Hindus didn’t turn amiable—only their spirit was crushed under the terrible yoke of British. It would be the fate of any people who are under foreign domination. Why even England suffered the same fate after Romans left them after four centuries of domination. England was poked, raided, looted by all and sundry in Rome’s aftermath.
You then mention Akhlaq, Pehlu Khan, attacks on movie directors, meat-eaters, rationalists as a mark of “strident Hindus” which must be kept in check by liberal Hindus. May be this is your concept of “war” which is mentioned in an earlier para. By this definition, any issue of law and order must be placed at the doorstep of “Strident Hindus.” If I may ask you, why Muzaffarnagar riots don’t form a part of your description? Is it because the then government was headed by Akhilesh Yadav, a non-BJP government?
Why this concept of war doesn’t include merciless hacking of BJP workers in Bengal and Kerala? Why is that calling Maa Durga as prostitute by Left-Liberals doesn’t upset you? Why not a word when the Azaadi brigade keeps silence on soldiers or CRPF men being martyred? Why no reflection on Kashmiri Pandit exodus? But Akhlaq and Pehlu are Muslims and serve your purpose on communal lines. It’s no different than the British Raj who divided India on communal lines. I can see such protagonists are still working overtime to break-up India.
You take your nonsense further by writing that Hindus never sought political power. Which history or religious books you have been reading Ma’am? Hindus have always believed that “shastra” and “shaastra” go together. That’s why you see our gods, Ram, Krishna etc with a weapon in their hands. ALWAYS. It’s not “Krishna, Ganpati are playful” as you mention. “Shaastra” can’t be defended without “Shastra.” Real Hindus know that. It’s been an old ploy to keep Hindu placid and non-violent, that “Amaan ki Aaasha” nonsense, which Britishers made good use of—by also promoting Mahatama’s Ahimsa—that served to keep their subjects docile. Please don’t try this trick on us. Not Again.
You say that Hinduism survived because of its “inwardness” despite enjoying no political patronage. Again which history books have you been reading.? All these splendid temples came up without any political patronage? The trouble is you have been reading books which treat North India’s history as the real Indian history. They had a motive in ignoring Pandyan, Chola, Chera, Satavahana, Pallava, Kadambas, Gangas and Chalukyas history. You are a spokesperson of the same divisive brand. It won’t work. No longer, Ma’am.
There are other inane references—such as “Azaan” issue, social medi trolls—which turn your piece nothing better than a rambling. The “Azaan” issue was not just about one religion. Sonu Nigam had called for a similar restraint on all religious noises. Social media trolls, well but for them, presstitutes would still be up to their tricks. Now they are being questioned and their lies are being made public. Indeed, they are the copy-editors you must submit your copy henceforth.