Freedom of Speech! Anyone?

Many see the Charlie Hebdo massacre as an assault on freedom of speech. Hence, many publications worldwide decided to strike a blow for freedom by producing Charlie Hebron’s cartoons. India chatterati, not to be left behind, have spoken ominously of dark days for free speech in India. Op-eds, full of homilies on how Charlie Hebdo’s ideas have emerged stronger abound, when strangely, not a single Indian publication has reproduced those cartoons which triggered the murders. Even in the US, where free speech is soundly protected by law, most publications have resorted to reproducing the more benign of those cartoons.

If it is really about free speech and if the liberal really believe in standing in solidarity with the martyred magazine, should not they have reproduced each of those offensive caricatures? Some might argue that supporting the general idea does not mean supporting specifics. True. But in the given situation, where publications/opinion-makers would like others to believe that they are not scared, what better way of proving that by doing something which really counts. Many Indian leaders differed with Gandhi. Most did not believe that preparing salt from sea-water would win India freedom. Yet, when Gandhi was arrested, the only way people showed solidarity was by breaking the law to prepare salt. When a lathi blow would take one Satyagrahi down, another one would take the fallen’s place. Not long back, standing up in solidarity with Salman Rushdie meant excerpt-reading, calling him for conferences. Hence, by desisting from taking a meaningful stand, most publications are only indulging in lip service when they engage in sterile and meaningless talks on freedom of speech.

The general reaction of news channels, media houses, liberal-voices only prove that the Islamists have won. Mani Shankar Aiyar is not the only person who has justified the massacre. Many self-proclaimed liberal voices have alluded that Charlie Hebdo invited what befell them. Were they not xenophobic, Islamophobic, racist, blasphemous? Were their cartoons not devoid of artistic merit but crude caricatures designed to provoke? And, if even in this charged atmosphere, when support for those killed is at its crest, the champions of free speech are desisting from ‘offending’, is it too much to imagine that self-censorship of any opinion critical of Islam is only becoming more entrenched? For many years, ‘mainstream’ publications have shown a remarkable reluctance to offer a critique of Islamic fundamentalism. If an ISS or a Taliban does get criticized, it is on grounds of their supposed mis-interpretation of Islamic scriptures. Really? People who have no idea of what a Hadith is claiming to know Islam better than those who spend their entire life in studying Quran and the life of its Prophet? When the Church opposes the theory of evolution, liberals don’t claim that the former is ‘mis-interpreting’ Christianity. They rightly point out to the stupidity of the faithful’s holding on to an erroneous belief. Likewise, no amount of whitewashing can justify scriptural sanctions for untouchability in Hinduism. Hence, the ‘right-thinking’ people offer their critiques and speak of the need to reform and discard such offensive belief systems. Yet, when it comes to Islam, somehow, the fault always becomes that of the victim. Be it any part of the world, the Muslims get presented as a marginalized community, beset with image problems, more sinned rather than sinning and most importantly, whose each atrocity is a reaction of the weak – terrorism a result of western imperialism, geopolitics, murders and arson an outcome of offended feelings.

The Kouachi brothers have achieved internationally what Ilm-ud-din achieved in India about 85 years back. Like the Kouachi brothers, Ilm-ud-din decided to award the punishment for blasphemy to Rajpal for having penned Rangila Rasool (which incidentally was in response to Sita ka Chinala which depicted Goddess Sita as a prostitute) and killed the latter in a crowded Lahore bazaar in 1929. Jinnah, the arch-secularist (at least as per Indian liberals and LK Advani) fought the case for the murderer and lost. Ilm-ud-din was hung. But, till the time the trial was in progress, Muslim crowds would line up the roads between the jail and the court and shower Ilm-ud-din with rose petals. His funeral was attended by almost a million and eulogies given by, among others, another arch-secularist, Allama Iqbal. A mosque was built in his honour and even to this day, Ilm-ud-din is fondly remembered by the Pakistani masses as a Shaheed and a Ghazi (Islamic holy warrior). Rajpal’s murder, coming 3 years after Swami Shraddhanand’s assassination by Abdul Rashid, ensured that the fear of death dictated criticism of Islam in India. Though much maligned (and in a way undeserving of such praise), the RSS and its offshoots or even the Hindu Mahasabha never dared to criticize the Prophet and Islam the way Arya Samaj had done in their publications. Even someone like AG Noorani, the pen-wielding Islamic fundamentalist who can trace Islamophobia in almost anything, would be hard-pressed to affix such blame on the Sangh Parivar.

If current reactions are anything to go by, the ‘Ghazi’ Kouachi brothers have ensured that even the more virulent critics of Islam will think multiple times before committing ‘blasphemy’. We will see and hear more on why and how Islamic atrocities are result of deliberate provocation of Muslims and how the victims of Islamic violence deserved their fate. So, at least, the Kouachi brothers have neither killed nor died in vain. They have ensured that the Quranic punishment for blasphemy has become mainstream!

While even the idea that someone needs to be killed because he/she wrote something offensive is revolting, the holier-than-thou approach of Indian fiberals (fake liberals) is simply nauseating. By seeking to equate people protesting against PK or against MF Hussain’s paintings with the murderers, our fiberals are only displaying their depths of intellectual corruption. But seriously, what can really be expected from a bunch of people who prefer to call Kashmiris driven out of their homes as migrants while calling a rich, resourceful painter who voluntarily acquired Qatari citizen (of course, a most liberal Nation), an exile? Or is it that that Chaupat Raja of Andher Nagari is the real icon of the fiberals? It would seem so, for it was only in Andher Nagari that each crime, irrespective of gravity, had a similar punishment. So, how are our conscience keepers wrong when they bay for the blood of ‘right-wing’ ‘loonies’ who like their Islamic counterparts go around shooting, stabbing, demonstrating in millions, attacking Nations, fighting wars, enslaving people, conducting massacres, forced conversions, punishing for blasphemy, yada yada. Yet, the similarities must stop. While the ISS and RSS are two sides of the same coin, each act of ISS is justified while the existence itself of RSS is liberal blasphemy.

Section 295(A) of the Indian Penal Code, which our fiberals want to be clamped on each right-wing loony is actually Jinnah’s gift to India. In the aftermath of Ilm-ud-din’s hanging, Jinnah prevailed upon the British Government to introduce this Section to make offending religious sensibilities a crime. Read the op-eds on ‘hate speech’. Our fiberals want liberal use of this section to clamp down on Hindutvavadis. So much so for freedom of speech.

While the fiberals do want freedom of speech for books banned under protests from the Hindutvavadis, not so strangely, they are supportive of bans on books seen as critical of Islam. ‘Understanding Islam through Hadis’, ‘Islam – A Concept of Political World Invasion’ are only two among the many books deemed inflammatory and banned by Governments to indifference or active support of the fiberals. Yet, let us move a little away from religion. Indian press has, unfortunately, has hardly taken a principled stand on the issue of free speech. Not long back, a Marathi play, Mee Nathuram Godse Boltoye was banned by NDA 1. Forget about campaigning against this ban, the fiberals led a campaign for this ban. More recently, Sakshi Maharaj (otherwise a convicted criminal garbed in saffron) was virtually lynched for pointing out the patriotism underlying Nathuram’s murder of Gandhi. The ‘Polyester Prince’ remains unofficially banned and so does the ‘Descent of Air India’. Any campaign in their favour?

The Indian fiberals has reduced ‘Freedom of Speech’ to a tool of subjugation. They decide on what ‘deserves’ to be free and what is profane. No wonder ideas and speech are under attack!

Who wants development?

Young India voted for development! People want development! India wants development! Development over divisive politics! Development over polarisation!

Media’s urge to simplify yet sensationalise, leads to catchy phrases, one-liners and homilies.  While good for dazzling headlines, on most occasions, these are but a lazy apology of any analysis. Yet, in what is reflective of the times we live in, large sections of the ‘thinking’ population seem to buy whatever is peddled in the name of ‘news’ which on most occasions are views formed of rigid ideologies and half-baked analysis.

So, even the most serious of issues is reduced to sloganeering – rising complaints of rape means India has a ‘rape culture’ even when investigative analysis from The Hindu shows that a large number of complaints being lodged today relate to minors eloping and love/live-in going bad.  A series of foreign visits by the Prime Minister get hailed as symptomatic of India’s claiming its ‘rightful’ place in the galaxy of nations, when there is no outcome which could support such delusion. A Laloo Prasad Yadav still gets spoken of as the Railway turnaround man, when his financial jugglery and mismanagement only pushed Railways to greater decline. The list is endless.  The media persists in simplifying issues even if it means extreme dumbing down, because a simple message is easy to communicate.

Other than rare circumstances, no elections are won or lost on a single issue alone.  UPA did not win 2004 because of India Shining alone. Likewise, BJP did not win on the plank of economic development alone.  Development yes, economic development alone, no! Some voted in hope of developing more secure borders, some for a less corrupt polity, some for Hindutva, some for a better life. The way National independence meant different things to different people, the same way, people voting for change expected different things from both the victors and losers.

Yet, for argument’s sake, let us assume that the Indian masses voted for economic development alone. Now in the last six months, the country has experienced quite a lot of Modi. Modi coined acronyms, Modi - the pop star, Modi – the charmer, Modi – the u-turn man, the silent-on-Sangh-Parivar-atrocities Modi, yada yada. These days, the MSM is brims over with wails on how the loony fringe (read RSS, VHP, Bajrang Dal, any Hindutva related organization) is diluting Government’s focus on development. Some more voices menacingly speak of how this is the ‘real’ agenda, development being hogwash! Some others bemoan that while the country voted for and is waiting for ‘development’, Modi government is sidestepping its responsibilities. That rather than ‘divisive issues’ getting sidelined, they are dominating ‘development’.

Again, for argument’s sake, let us assume that the media-imagined binaries do exist. Let us suspend our judgement and agree to the ominous assertion that what is not false must necessarily be true, that that is not yet must certainly be no. Let us, go with the MSM assertions since it has abrogated to itself, the right to act as the Nation’s moral guardian (even if morality is otherwise akin to a swear word).

Having accepted each of MSM’s assertion, can we ask them (MSM) if they are interested in development?

No one can blame MSM of lacking guts when it comes to pushing its agenda or campaigning for issues which are close to its heart. Be it the asinine Aman ki Asha or the venomous coverage of riots. For the last few months, the MSM has sharpened its missionary zeal to ‘discover’ attacks on secularism. No issue can be declared minor or irrelevant when the ‘idea of India’ is at stake and so, for months now, we have had apoplectic chatterati, screaming till they are blue in the face, that the RSS (worse than ISIS) is destroying secularism. Whether it is a case of a pastor clashing with a drunk marriage party, a suspected case of arson at a church, change of ICHR head, off-the-cuff remarks on history by sundry personalities, usage of some not-so-kosher terms by a minister, praise of an assassin, re-conversions, the MSM has admirably (in its own way) held aloft the flagging flag of secularism.

Pray, if the MSM is really interested in economic development, which is claims is getting sidestepped, where exactly is its outrage? When has it tried to put Modi Government on mat on the issue of development? This Government, after railing against UPA policies, has taken enough u-turns to resemble a UPA 3 government. A large number of questionable actions taken by this Government (changing rules for individuals, tinkering with railway fares through executive orders, gas pricing, political appointees in constitutional posts, etc.) are sought to be justified on specious grounds that the previous governments did the same. This government is following those UPA policies which it vehemently opposed when in opposition and now claims that those are silver bullets for economic growth. Which section of MSM has tried to put Modi on mat for it? If what NDA professes now is indeed true, why should it not be held equally accountable (as UPA) for those lost years of India’s growth? Which news anchor is trying to dissect the impact of changes in land acquisition bill and whether an ordinance was required to push this change?

A question to the MSM – if it is indeed true that the common man is more interested in finding a livelihood than anything else, is the MSM not guilty of batting for causes which are not a primary concern for this archetypical common man? How does it matter then, to a mill-worker or a CEO if Godse was a patriot or a bloodthirsty assassin? Anyway, since the MSM has made it very clear that rules which apply to the Hindus to not apply for the so-called minorities, let us grant it to them that while a Bhindranwale can be considered a martyr, an Afzal Guru an innocent victim of the oppressive Indian state, any Hindu opinion, unless validated and approved by the self-professed liberals, is by default communal, divisive and regressive. Hence, it is understandably welcome if a Muslim is concerned about Babri but abomination that a Hindu feels about Ramjanmabhoomi.

Still, even when allowing for all its ideological predilections, the MSM cannot be excused for not holding Modi accountable for any issue other than ‘secularism’. By ignoring ‘developmental’ issues and focusing on esoteric ideas, the MSM is letting the Modi government off the hook. A defense of secularism (even if it is at its most perverted) does not mean that Modi should not be questioned as vehemently for ‘real’ issues.

If only people blaming NDA for moving away from the development plank were themselves interested in development!

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.