Take a stand Uddhav

But for the recent pre-election intrigues at Maharashtra, the BJP had over the years, perfected the art of being ‘ditched’ by its so-called allies. So strong was BJP’s sense of self-flagellation that multiple kicks by Mayawati in UP, Mamata in Bengal and Jayalalitha in Tamil Nadu only heightened the urge of its leaders to be once again held in embrace by these parties, even when fully knowing the fate that would follow such alliances. Before Nitish, guided by the delusion of ruling India in 2014 itself, pulled out from the NDA, the BJP had begged, groveled, crawled, swallowed all indignities, parted with Lok Sabha seats, Rajya Sabha berths, in short, continued to act like a traditional Indian wife in an abusive marriage before the inevitable happened. Yet, all those snubs fall short of the divorce masterstroke played by Naveen Patnaik just before 2009 elections. While the BJP continued to press for its original share of seats, Naveen kept up the charade of bargaining to increase his seat share, as in his words – the BJD had gained strength owing to which ground realities had changed’, before pulling out of the alliance just days before the elections. To say that the BJP was nettled would be an understatement. Smug in its belief that the BJD would need its support in the post-election scenario, the BJP unleashed a vituperative campaign, even alleging Naveen’s involvement in the barbaric assassination of Swami Laxmananand Saraswati the year earlier, with some leaders even proclaiming in public rallies that the soul of departed saint would ensure that 2009 is Naveen’s Waterloo.

Well, the electorate thought otherwise. Naveen won a large majority single handedly and the BJP was reduced to single digits in the assembly, a situation which has only marginally improved even 5 years later. So clinically successful was Naveen’s severance in 2009 that even now the secularists celebrate it while the BJP continues to nurse a deep grudge against Naveen and even Pyari Mohan Mahapatro, the then architect of that divorce.

Given its experiences, it was quite ironical to see the BJP adopting Naveen’s book while shrugging off Shiv Sena as an inconvenient partner. The similar claims of higher seat share, the same sham of negotiations, the same last minute desertion, similar poaching of candidates from other parties, wholesale intake of office bearers across constituencies where the BJP’s presence was weak, (though not on a scale as big as Naveen). What was additional was confabulations with the enemy – Sharad Pawar, who seems to end up holding some or the other aces in all elections. It will be foolhardy to dismiss the likelihood that BJP dumped the Sena only after Pawar assured that it would do the same with Congress. Just notice how both the alliances came apart within hours of each other and even post election, NCP barely took time to declare its support to the BJP. Further, it is difficult to visualise that people as canny as Amit Shah and Narendra Modi would have run the risk of running a solo campaign against a Congress-NCP alliance, which even in its most discredited state, together command a vote share higher than that BJP.

Anyway, like Orissa 2009, Maharashtra 2014 too proved that people are hardly bothered with esoteric ideas like ‘betrayal’. So, even though it did not win an outright majority, it won enough to prove that it had indeed become decisively bigger than its erstwhile partner.

The similarities stop here. Unlike the BJP in Orissa, Sena was not decimated in Maharashtra. Not only did it protect most of its strongholds, it gained vote-share and seats to emerge as the second largest entity in Maharashtra. Further, while it is difficult to visualise Naveen seeking Congress support (and Congress reciprocating) had he fallen short, the BJP had no qualms in visibly embracing support of a party which large segments of Maharashtrians see as epitome of corruption and misrule. Add to that the reaction of BJP supporters. Those very people who had nothing but the choicest abuses for Naveen see no wrong in similar acts getting committed against its oldest ally. Lastly, while the angry BJP reconciled itself to an opposition role in Orissa, the Shiv Sena, is acting like the BJP would, when Maya, Mamata and Jaya were concerned. Probably it has something to do with the Hindu Nationalistic DNA of both the parties that make them act thus. Yet, the cringe-inducing behaviour of Sena has only succeeded in lowering its prestige in the eyes of the world.

While there are many reasons why Balasaheb and his bunch of Sainiks came to occupy a special place in the hearts of Maharashtrians, one aspect which defined Balasaheb, and by extension, the Sena, was his bravado backed by stubborn adherence to stands once taken, howsoever, politically incorrect they would be. Sena under Balasaheb was akin that neighbourhood toughie, who even with all his vices, is loved because the toughie is a man of his word, of conviction, is available on call and protects the neighbourhood in his own not-so-civil ways. Today, even though Uddhav has managed to score a victory of sorts, having held on to his forts and decisively reclaiming his father’s legacy from his usurper cousin, he is a much diminished leader. He is seen at most like a Maratha sardar of the olden days, who would swallow every indignity to curry some favours from the Delhi Sultanate. Why should people be blamed if they think so – is not the party of late Balasaheb reduced to a pathetic state of begging for invitations to oath taking ceremonies, of beseeching all influencers to gain a foothold in the state government, of any number of inconsequential ministries? This is a party where while at one time, Chhagan Bhujbal, the strongest strongman Sena has known, had to go virtually underground to escape Sainik’s wrath for deserting the party. Today, a political featherweight like Suresh Prabhu can join the central ministry, ostensibly on the Sena’s quota, without as much as a hello, thank you, from Uddhav!

Just what prevented Uddhav from pulling out of the NDA when the BJP so unceremoniously dumped it? What is it that keeps Uddhav hoping that the BJP would finally agree to take him in? Even if it does, will it be worth the immense harm it has already inflicted and will further inflict on the Sena’s image? Just what does it want? Play the role of an effective opposition or continue with its pusillanimity, hoping for crumbs from the BJP?

Let’s not think even for a moment that having tasted power on its own strength, the BJP would ever be willing to sup with Sena as even equal partners ever. They don’t need to. People have spoken. Yet, since both the Sena and the BJP tap a common voter-base for support, the BJP will try its level best to further shrink Sena, if possible to the point of oblivion or at least, to an inconsequential rump. Currently, the BJP holds the maximum number of MLAs from Mumbai, the heart of Sena. Why would the BJP agree to contest the coming civic elections as a junior partner of Sena? And if they fight even as equal partners, it would be a de jure acceptance of Sena of its diminished role in Maharashtra. As an opposition, the Sena stands a stronger chance of withstanding BJP’s onslaught. Not only will it be immune from the charges of commission and omission which will stick to it even if it supports the BJP from outside, it has potential to occupy more of the opposition space ceded by a receding Congress and those sections of the population which have a strong affinity to Hindutva related politics.

It is a sad commentary on the partisan nature of our politics that forget core BJP supporters, even traditional opponents of the BJP have found nothing objectionable in the NCP-BJP live-in. The BJP has every reason to thank NCP. Had it not been for its corruption, the public mood against the State Government may not have been that strong. Had it not been for Pawar’s assurances, the BJP might not have been able to cut Sena to size. But for its brazen support to its Government, the BJP would still have had to make amends with Shiv Sena. But, an alliance with Pawar, howsoever covert it might be, only damages the BJP’s sheen. An indulgent public may turn the blind eye today. Tomorrow, nothing stops them from declaring it as dyed in corruption as the ‘Naturally Corrupt Party.

Moving from Maharashtra, even though the BJP dumped Kuldeep Bishnoi’s Haryana Janhit Party too, the two dumping instances (Sena and HJC) are very different from each other. While agreements need to be honoured, they are entered into with an underlying assumption of the partner’s strenght. HJC even though bouyed by the Modi wave, miserably failed to display any strength in the Lok Sabha polls, with Bishnoi too losing his seat. Add to that HJC’s flirting with other parties (including Congress) tenuous connect with the NDA and a proclivity to run an independent campaign, BJP can be little faulted in parting ways from a vacuous, unreliable ally. The Sena’s case is different. Not only was the alliance old, it was based on a clear understanding of role of the larger party getting swapped in assembly and parliamentary elections. Even more, the Sena performed credibly well in the Lok Sabha elections too, proving that it was a worthy partner as far as electoral stakes were concerned.

Anyway, all analysis are passe. Uddhav has to decide – whether to uphold the Sena legacy and continue a tough, solitary struggle or get reduced to a political cipher in its thirst for immediate fruits of office.

Can we defend our ignorance?

That Frontline is a Marxist rag is no new knowledge. Yet, many amongst us diligently follow its articles (alongwith those published on fellow travelers like Outlook, Kafila, Caravan, Scroll, etc.) to retain a window to working of those convoluted minds. As a rule, any note on Hinduism/Indian culture, published on any of the above has to be derogatory and an attack on the Hindu way of life. More charitably, at max, they could be called rants of paranoid, jaundiced eyes, which see nothing but evil in their own roots.

With the huge success the left-liberal intelligentsia has scored in its four decade long efforts towards a collective dumbing down of the masses, resulting in a situation where leftist truisms have become unchallenged conventional wisdom, it is no wonder that the old Indian tradition of critical enquiry has taken a backseat. Statements get made and they get accepted without question. Quite a change from the days when even the route to knowledge was through constant questioning, synthesis and analysis of facts!

Any person who studies the public and parliamentary debates from the pre-independence era would be excused if he/she is astounded at the depth of knowledge and thinking of the opinion-makers and sections of the general public. Rare would be situation where a statement/action on the Hindu way of life would go unchallenged. The result of these intense debates were a greater understanding and acceptance of the need for change in customs which governed the Indian people. Today, we have reached a stage where any Tom, Dick or Harry can make any unsubstantiated comment on Hinduism and even ‘practising’ Hindus either swallow it without questioning or find themselves hard-pressed to counter the insinuation/calumny effectively. True, there would be bunch of knowledgeable people active on the Internet trying to counter the leftists but let us be realistic. Just how effective are they? Who reads them? Do they manage to reach, preach and convert those who are not already converted? Do they manage to make a dent in the impregnable fortress of non-knowledge raised by Marxists over the last many decades? The answer is - sadly, no. Not only are such activists constrained in their outreach (just how many have internet access and how many of them actually read such ‘heavy’ discussions?), they are further constrained by the success of Marxists in moulding thought process and sensibilities of large sections of Indians; whereby any talk on religion is deemed regressive, where it has become an accepted fact that the salient features of Hinduism are caste system, horrid rituals and oppression of the backward classes and women.

If the above seems harsh or unduly pessimistic, let’s take a simple test. Almost all who know about Hinduism know about the caste system, where Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Shudras form the caste hierarchy (in descending order). Now, many of us also ‘know’ that this caste system has been sanctioned by the Vedas, the biggest proof being the Purush Sukta of the Rig-Veda. Based on this common knowledge, Frontline, like numerous others, has no qualms in claiming such sanction, offering as proof ‘…the Rg Veda speaks of four major castes, tribes being outside the then localised caste scheme: “Brahmana was his (the Supreme Being’s) mouth, Kshatriya made of his arms; the Vaisya his thighs, and the Sudra generated from his feet (RV.X.90.12), says the particularly sacred Puru-sasukta hymn’

Now, Purusha-Sukta is one of the most used Vedic hymn, recited a large number of rituals and ceremonies. It is chanted during the worship of the Vishnu, during havan or simply as a part of the daily prayer. Its importance can be further judged from the fact that other than the Rig-Veda, it appears in numerous other Aranyaka, Samhita, Upanishad, in addition to the Bhagvat Purana and Mahabharata. Hence, very clearly, a hymn which most religiously inclined Hindus should be aware of.

Yet, the very fact that assertions such as those of Frontline go unchallenged, underlines the painful reality of my contentions above. As anyone who would have read the said Sukta would know, it is some 24 stanzas long. The entire Sukta talks about birth of the Purusha and his sacrifice in a yagna. It is from that sacrifice that the four castes were born from the said body parts of the Virat-purusha.

ब्राह्मणोऽस्य मुखमासीद् बाहू राजन्यः कृतः ।
ऊरू तदस्य यद्वैश्यः पद्भ्यां शूद्रो अजायत ॥१२॥
Meaning:
12.1: The Brahmanas wereHis Mouth, the Kshatriyas became His Arms,
12.2: The Vaishyas were His Thighs, and from His pair of Feet were born the Shudras.

But that was not all, the hymns continue and state:

चन्द्रमा मनसो जातश्चक्षोः सूर्यो अजायत ।

मुखादिन्द्रश्चाग्निश्च प्राणाद्वायुरजायत ॥१३॥
Meaning:
13.1: The Moon was born from His Mind and the Sun was born from His Eyes,
13.2: Indra and Agni (Fire) were born from His Mouth, and Vayu (Wind) was born from His Breath.

नाभ्या आसीदन्तरिक्षं शीर्ष्णो द्यौः समवर्तत ।
पद्भ्यां भूमिर्दिशः श्रोत्रात्तथा लोकाँ अकल्पयन् ॥१४॥
Meaning:
14.1: His Navel became the Antariksha (the intermediate Space between Heaven and Earth), His Head created the Heaven,
14.2: From His Feet the Earth, and from His Ears the Directions were created; in this manner all the Worlds were regulated by Him.

Not only does the hymn does not contain any reference to the people outside the four varnas having sprung from soil (or night soil in the more rabid Marxist versions), a reading of the entire Sukta will conclusively prove to anyone that the supposed hierarchy of the four castes, as deriving it’s sanctity on the authority of the Purusha-sukta is highly contrived. In the yagna, many aspects of the world which we know were created. If legs (from which the Shudras were created) are to be taken as inferior to head (from which Brahmins were created), then the Moon should be our supreme deity as it was born from the mind. Sadly, at no time, either hoary or near past has the moon been worshipped thus.  Likewise, Vayu (wind) should have had a very inferior status as born it was out of Breath (exhaled air which is ritually impure). Earth will anyway be the most inferior, having been created out the His feet, like the oppressed Shudra!

Why did I pick the example of Purusha-sukta? Simply because this is one of the most abused suktas from the Vedas. Abused not only by those vested interests but also abused by us – people who are supposed to know what it is. Unfortunately, even for the relatively better informed sections of our society, Marxist utterances are taken as truth simply because they have been uttered by people who these Marxists have declared ‘eminent’. We may not realise it but hidden behind the mask of Romila Thapars bewailing ‘regression’, are a thousand smiles, smug in the knowledge that they, the Marxists, have won the battle of ideas. It is they, who control what we think! 

Note: For a good commentary on the Purusha-sukta, refer to the link here.

The chimeral moderate

A few weeks ago, the world with agog with parallel tales of terror and destruction; the ISIS led massacres of minorities across Iraq and of destruction wreaked by Israeli onslaught on Gaza. Some aspects of these two series of events were similar - families uprooted, children and women killed, destitution which follows war. The theatre was common and also common was the thread of Islamic thought as one of the factors driving the conflicts. The similarities stop here. Scale and impact-wise, there was little which was common between the toll at Gaza and casualties in Iraq. While the death toll at Gaza was an unfortunate but direct result of the Hamas using civilians as shields, the humanitarian tragedy of Iraq was a direct consequence of the rebirth of Islamic Caliphate.

One would have expected the world to react with horror and revulsion. It would not have been very far off the mark to visualize world over, rallies being organised, human chains formed, mass protests organised, community prayers conducted, and assembling of feet on street to fight the savages, all symbolizing an outright rejection of the theology ISIS stands for.

Sadly but perhaps expectedly, the only action on street was a series of organised protests, both by Muslims and left-liberal intelligentsia against Israeli actions in Gaza. The media was afire with sob stories of human casualties in the occupied land, how little children were deprived of milk and their childhood, how innocent civilians were being butchered by Israel. Yet, from this same bunch, nary a tear was shed for the victims of ISIS’s civilisational wars, neither from the eyes of the ‘oppressed’ Muslim world, nor from the eyes of their countess apologists and Islamophiles.

Some of the more brazen (read shameless) among the left-liberal groups might argue that many statements ‘condemning’ ISIS’s actions had been issued by the intelligentsia. Some will haughtily proclaim that even ISIS, like Taliban, is an outcome of American interventions and hence the world will have to suffer again. While there can be little to argue with people who can even think of offering such excuses, it must be noted that given the outrageously high scale of difference in between Gaza and Iraq, a mere condemnation of the latter as against frothing protests on the former, only shows the extent of lip service being offered to the cause of freedom. As regards the genesis of ISIS, even if it were an illegitimate child sired with the vilest of ill-intentions, the hands which killed, maimed, enslaved and raped were still of ISIS and not the USA.

For those who follow affairs of the world, the left-liberal hypocrisy won’t come as a surprise. Not only in India, in human theatres across the world, has this group displayed its duplicity and hypocrisy many a times over. Even otherwise, the left-liberal intelligentsia has vitiated the public discourse so much that any attempt to critique Islam, attempt to analyse the Black culture in US, attempt to question the aggressive caste politics of the erstwhile depressed classes in India, is certain to attract howls of accusations around racism, casteism, xenophobia, Islamophobia, blah, blah!

While even the minutest of efforts in trying to show reason to these label-loving intelligent beings is bound to go waste, the independent and the ideologically agnostic must pause and mull over the non-existence of a mythical being, the moderate Muslim.

Most of the population seems to believe that like the vast majority of Christians, Hindus, Buddhists and other religion practitioners, the vast majority of Muslims too are liberals by heart, little concerned about anything other than their quality of life. And since these people are not fanatics, they must know what the true spirit of Islam is and so, would be repelled at the very thought that the religion of peace has been hijacked by some blood-thirsty loonies and stand shoulder to shoulder with rest of the world to protect human lives and dignity.

Yet, this supposed silent majority is so silent that even a ghost’s whisper would create more noise in comparison. Take a dipstick of Muslims you know. Rest assured, close to a unanimous majority of those Muslims, who are aware of the Gaza issue, will blame Israel completely. Without exception would their hearts beat for the innocent lives lost in Palestine and for those killed in drone attacks in Af-Pak. Yet, when prodded about Boko Haram, ISIS, Taliban or the Al Qaida, the more polished would offer an easy silence, at max, an uncertain but qualified condemnation –‘what they are doing is wrong but…’

Can these moderate Muslims stand up and say as to why the interpretation of Quranic verses and Hadith by these terrorist organisations are incorrect and how? Can they denounce the fact and organize a struggle to stop Muslims from all ranks of life, from across the world, pleading allegiance to ISIS, teaming up to join their group? Can they and the supposedly enlightened ulema stand with conviction and denounce the practice of forced conversions, genocide, sexual slavery as acts beyond the pale of humanity?

Unlikely; nay, Impossible!

The very simple reason is – ISIS and its sister organisations are doing simply what Quran and the Hadith command. Any Muslim, who is even remotely religious, cannot then condemn as their acts being contrary to Islam. As regards people who are more religious, well, they find those otherwise repulsive acts to be a mere replication of what happened in Arabia some 1400 years back.

Is it not presumptuous of the independent-minded and the moderates from other religions to assume that somehow they know more of what Islam says and stands for? They, who have no clue of what shuras and the hadith enjoin, as compared to those from the Taliban, the ISIS etc., people who have spent their entire lives in understanding and then living the Islamic theology?

The sad truth is – the ummah, irrespective of the social class or the economic background of the practitioner, stands as one on the question of kufr and the divine right of Muslims to rule the world. Any supposed attack of Islam, be it an ineffectual set of cartoons of the Prophet, or an even more insignificant event, the result is a sea of murderous mobs on streets across the world, thirsting for revenge.

If it sounds hyperbolic, consider this. A few days back, a few devout Muslim women, covered in hijab, held placards in front of a mosque in Bhopal, appealing fellow Muslims to forego animal sacrifice this Id. Point to be highlighted – mere placards held by Muslim women, appealing fellow Muslims for an Id without animal sacrifice. Granted, many, who believe sacrifice to be intrinsic to Id, would be offended. But, the result of these placards was an attack on the women, their molestation and subsequent justification by the supposedly moderate Muslims, that Muslims were provoked into reacting the way they did.

Now, if the supposed silent majority are so much with the vocal supposedly, minority on almost all issues of importance, is it too much of a stretch of imagination to conclude that these imagination of a group of moderate Muslims is precisely that – an imagination, a chimera!

Some might still argue that there are indeed moderate thoughts among the Muslims. Of course, there are. But, most of these moderate strains of Islam are in those regions which continue to be heavily influenced by their Hindu/pagan past. The more you Arabicise Islam, that is, bring Islam truer to its moorings, the more rigid it becomes. In the vast lands of India, Bangladesh, North Africa and South East Asia, there are numerous organisations like Ahl-e-Hadith, which are precisely doing that. Making ‘true’ Muslims of people who are currently, Muslim only in name but culturally, close to the land of their forefathers. Till the time they do not start believing and acting like their brethren of the Arabian deserts, they can never be true Muslims.

And indeed, of the 4 schools of Islamic jurisprudence, the Hanafi, Shafi’i, Hanbali and Maliki, Hanafi is seem as more liberal in treatment of non-believers as compared to the Shafi school. But, is it really liberal? When you consider that the for the Hanafi school, their liberalism (among many), lies in ‘granting’ the right of life to the Hindus (including Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs), in lieu of humiliating payment of jaziya, when the more puritan Shafi school would precise either of conversion or death?

If we consider Hanafi to be liberal, that would only mean that we have accepted that Islam would be more aggressive and more demanding; that non-Muslims can treat any concession as only some manna from heaven.

It is revolting that the Islamic apologists (read left-liberal brigade), defend atrocities in the name of Islam more doggedly than Muslims themselves (arguments on the lines of – they were provoked… they were oppressed.. it was not really religion…etc.). It is even more revolting that these apologists defend the silence of the supposedly moderate Muslims, claiming that they are under no obligation to protest against crimes committed in the name of Islam.

Very sorry to say, but they are. They are under this obligation firstly because they need to prove that they exist. They are even more of an obligation to prove that they are sincere. They need to stand up and say that irrespective of what the Quran and the Hadith say, Muslims should not, and will not, act in ways which are against basic human decencies. The way no amount of whitewashing will justify the ills of untouchability in Hinduism and the brutal medieval history of Christianity, no amount of beating around the bush will solve the problem of certain Islamic thoughts being against the civilisational virtues we stand for. There is lot of be proud of about Islam. There is a lot of positive which Islam has taught the world and continues to teach. Yet, these positives do not whitewash and stand independent of the goodness of Islamic thought. If the world can become a dangerous place because mobs across the world protest against any real or imagined slight to Islam, these protestors also owe to the world, their support of those who are being raped, killed, exiled, forcibly made to give up religion of their forefathers, simply because they happen to be non-Muslims or Muslims from the ‘wrong’ denomination. If the mythical moderate Muslim does exist, let him fight for the right causes, or simply, be true, to what he believes is the true meaning of his religion of peace.

As regards India, in words of Will Durant - ‘The Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history of mankind’. In addition to being at the receiving end of invasions and the consequent proselytizing zeal of its invaders, India has, not long back, lived through the horrors of what a Caliphate would be like. The Mopallah revolt of 1921, which started off as an offshoot of the Khilafat movement, soon morphed into a jehad. A Caliphate was declared and consequently, Hindus, who are dhimmis par excellence under all the 4 schools of Islamic jurisprudence, had to revisit the fate which their ancestors in different parts of India had faced many a times over in the last 1200 years. In words of Dr Annie Besant – ‘Malabar has taught us what Islamic rule still means, and we do not want to see another specimen of the Khilafat Raj in India.’ It was nothing but ironical that it was finally the hated British, against who the freedom struggle was being led, who clamped down on the bloodthirsty, jehad-crazed mopallah with an iron hand.

Many apologists of Islam claim that had Islamic rule really been barbaric, it would not have succeeded in extending its rule over large swathes of the world in less than 100 years of Islam taking form. But, it was precisely this barbarism, which facilitated growth of the Islamic empire. In any clash between the civilized and the barbarians, it is the civilized who are held back by the rules of civilization. The barbarians, free of such encumbrances, emboldened by primitive blood lust and promise of loot (wealth and women), will invariably triumph. Kingdom after kingdom fell to the marauding armies of Islam, which offered the vanquished population little option but conversion, slavery or death. Today’s growth and consolidation of ISIS owes much to its adopting the means of those early Islamic armies. Savages lose only when they are confronted with people with greater savagery. E.g. Islamic rules falling to Mongol hordes. Or, alternately, when confronted with a determined adversary, who has no illusions on the nature or intent of such barbarians.

Sadly, with our National consciousness geared to beat breasts only for Gaza, difficult to foresee on why the land of Hind won’t be under Caliphate rule sooner or later.