My blog

Author: Yuga Parivartan yuga_parivartan

  • Why feminist rhetoric against Patriarchy is flawed

    Why feminist rhetoric against Patriarchy is flawed

    Patriarchy has become one of the most common buzzwords used by the feminists to bash anyone they don’t agree with and specially the right wing Hindus in India, even though the latter claim to be rationalists. But does patriarchy really deserve the hate it gets from the feminists? An honest look at history through a neutral lens would tell a different story. Patriarchy is not an evil system designed to exploit women, but it was a system which helped human society build great civilisations.

    All civilizations which rose up and became great in history were grounded in patriarchy. So, if one looks at it from an evolutionary point of view, the debate is already settled in favour of patriarchy. It is no coincidence that there is no matriarchal society in the world other than in feminist fiction. Amazons don’t exist in real life because it is impossible for such a society to compete with the patriarchal society. To understand the reason why patriarchy is so ubiquitous across the world and civilisations, one has to look at basic human behaviour and diversity.

    Even though feminists claim otherwise, humans are a sexually dimorphic species. Men tend to have stronger muscle mass, stronger body, better spacial orientation and are better suited to the role of soldiers and roles which require hard work and physical effort like toiling under the sun and farming while women have a weaker body and are better at providing care to the young and old. And unlike men, women have the unique ability to give birth to children. No matter how hard feminists and their libtard Hindu cousins try, men can never give birth to children.

    This unique place of women to give birth to children made them very valuable to the society and hence they were kept protected under the house and men were left to die fighting for them against the invading barbarians in the post nomad hunter-gatherer society. This was also the reason men were made responsible for working and earning bread because unlike the easy lazy life of modern day, earning bread in those early times meant toiling under the burning sun for several hours. Given the choice between toiling under sun for several hours or taking care of a child at home, the safer choice for women was more than obvious for human ancestors.

    Another reason why women were protected under patriarchal society was because of the high mortality rate of then societies. Unlike the present day with massive improvement in health and sanitation, stone age and medieval societies had a poor health infrastructure and hence suffered massive infant mortality problems. On average, only 2-3 children of 8-10 children born to a woman survived. So the only way for the society to even survive and replace themselves was by having enough children. Also, since the old societies barely had anything left over after they had consumed themselves, there was no welfare state back then to take care of the old people. So the only way for social stability and security was to have as many children as possible. If the women had been allowed to work and die in farms and armies like men did, it would have ruined the demographics of their societies beyond sustenance, much like how feminist societies like Germany and Sweden have ruined themselves today with their fertility rate way below replacement level. Is it any wonder that almost all religions of the world revered women for their capability to bear children?

    Unsurprisingly feminists and their libtard Hindu cousins also have no problem making it out as if men had all the privileges of the society and had an easy life at the expense of women, who were supposedly made into slaves. However nothing can be farther from the truth. While men did have the privileges like being allowed to go out and serve in the army, it came at the cost of losing their lives. The whole feminist narrative of women being the victims of patriarchy is based on cherry picking the examples of women being relegated to home and comparing it with modern day comforts and asserting that patriarchy was harsh to women because it did not allow women to work. This is patently wrong for two reasons. First, the most important reason being that the ancient times were harsh on everyone, i.e. both men and women, and home was the safest place for a woman at the time to work from. Compare the difficulty of staying home and taking care of children with the toil men had to go through under the sun to bring food to the table. There were no tractors and bulldozers at the time to do the hard work and muscle power was the prime energy source for work. Secondly, women weren’t not allowed to work, at least not in the areas were they were not threatened by barbarians/enemy. The fact of the matter is, unlike the “me me me” modern day feminists and their libtard cousins, women of that time did what was best in their capacity to help their family which at times included working for the family in the family fields. It was not uncommon that women worked in pounding the rice, harvesting of paddy, tea plantations etc in India and do it even today in most of the rural areas to help their families’ survival. So this whole notion that women were oppressed inside the kitchen from start to finish, at least in Indian context is completely false. This is the reason that the “me me me” narcissism of urban feminists has no takers among the rural women and the more intelligent Indian women?

    All that Indian feminists are doing is projecting the oppression of women in Islamic/Christian societies and projecting it on the Hindu society and history, being the self hating oikophobic cultural Marxists they are. Ironically enough, they have no problem claiming that Muhammad, who had multiple wives and a 6 year old wife when he was 54 and advocated taking sex slaves among captured populations as a feminist icon. Perhaps it is not so ironic since the goal of the feminists is to make life miserable for all women that they protect the worst misogynistic religion out there i.e. Islam without any shame. Not surprisingly, a lot of feminists convert from vile feminism to Islam after doing mental gymnastics in trying to defend terms like Muslim feminist.

    It is even more sad that the sacrifices men made for protecting their children and families by dying in the armies and toiling in the sun is brushed off as privilege by the feminists. They often cite that women were not independent from their men and hence were oppressed but this is again disingenuous as men did not have the same independence either. The truth is, men had different set of privileges to women in the society and the privileges were not unique to men. Women don’t have the same privilege as men in that they weren’t allowed to hold administrative posts. But then again, men never had the privilege to opt out of work and stay at home and eat out of their wife’s hard work either. Such a man was usually seen as a coward and and looked down upon by the society. Also, men were expected to give up their lives in defence of the the society and country and home which women were exempted from. No surprise that whenever there was a calamity, kids and women were the first one to be saved. According to post modern analysis, feminists usually refute it by saying that women were treated at par with property and hence given this special treatment under distress. But seriously, who in their right mind would think of saving their house and car when hunted down by a violent mob or army? It goes completely against the spirit of devotion and love that human ancestors had for their offspring and women-folk, something which the rabid feminists are more than happy to ignore. But in any case privileges were not a black and white issue as the Marxists and their derivatives, feminists try to hammer into young brains today.

    If one goes to the rural and poor sections of India, it would not be that uncommon to see women working their backs off to support their families. They usually work multiple jobs to support their family, along with their rickshaw pulling or manual labour husbands to improve their own and their children lives. Has any of them come and complained that life is unfair only for them and not for their husbands like the city feminists of upper middle class and middle class parrot day in and day out? Compare these women who face real hardships, but for whom men would not mind to sacrifice their lives or die, with the urban feminazis, who faced no problems while growing up on their father’s money but claim victimhood because they can’t sleep around or the now famous “house wife job is the most difficult job in the world” whiners of middle class, who claim oppression for doing their own job of taking care of their own house, while their husbands are busy busting their backs, on jobs they usually don’t like, for brining food, clothes and wealth to their wives and children. While one cannot downplay the sacrifices housewives do for their families, the propaganda that only house wives sacrifice for their families and not their husbands creates a toxic atmosphere for the families. How long do you think a family, where there is constant victimisation of one or the other partner instead of appreciation for each other’s sacrifices, would last?

    Also, by invoking this highly divisive victimisation of a single gender role vs the other, they turn the problems faced by women into a gender war by disingenuously avoiding the mentioning of the sacrifices made by men and their problems. This is of course very unhealthy for the society as a whole, including its women by blowing up the family structures. Can anyone with a right mind claim that no fault divorce culture of the west, which has created 50% single mothers and lonely cat ladies with massive depression in the west, is good for women? They leave no stone unturned to convert the once glorious and most feminine and natural act of giving birth to children, which brought so much joy, love and fulfilment into an unwanted and thankless “job”. Instead they wish to turn women into boring, mundane, mechanical corporate slaves addicted to depression pills and cats like the feminist women of the west. All of these feminists need to ask themselves- is it also due to patriarchy that women are blessed by nature to have the capability to bear children? Well, why wouldn’t the feminists want to demonize pregnancy and childbirth, after all, they wish to turn all women into men and destroy the femininity of women.

    When cornered by logic, Indian feminists also pull out some standard social problems prevalent mostly in pre-independence India to beat down Hindus into submission and guilt. Most of these problems which the feminists claim to be misogynistic are not actually a direct result of women hating or misogyny in Hinduism but rather attempts at trying to protect women from the harsh realities at different points of time in history. Take the instance of Sati. It was certainly a vile practice, but it was done to protect Hindu women from being raped by Muslims and taken as sex slaves after their husbands’ death, a regular practice justified under Quran. Women at that time preferred honourable death to the life of a slave, unlike the western feminists who are more than happy to invite hordes of barbarians in their countries today under the pretext of multiculturalism. Thus many took their own life by jumping into fire instead of giving the Muslim invaders a chance to enslave them. Is it any wonder that the places where Sati was most prevalent were also the areas where the Muslim atrocities were maximum like Bengal and north India and was practically not heard off in Tamil Nadu and South India? And although British banned it finally but it was already non-existent in many northern kingdoms and many Hindus were already trying to reform it.

    Or take the example of child marriage. Feminists claim that this is a specific case of misogyny even though this was a practice which affected both boys and girls. The married couples were usually both children and was not an issue of misogyny as the Indian feminists try to portray it. In fact, even this was a result of Muslims fetish for young virgin girls who did not lose any chance to marry them if given a chance. This forced Hindus to save their daughters by marrying them off at a younger age so as to dent the virginity fetish of Islamic hordes. Ironically enough, but not so surprisingly, the same feminists who claim Ram to be a misogynist for testing Sita under pressure of the then society, don’t forget to give feminist halal certificate for a 54 year old man marrying and consummating a 9 year old child.

    Is it any wonder that they call Lord Ram, the ideal husband a misogynist while giving the mass murderer a tag of feminist icon? Lord Ram, the ideal husband who had to part with his one and only wife, Mother Sita, under the then prevalent rules of society is the favourite punching bag for all Indian feminists. Did Lord Ram suffer any less than Mother Sita in trying to uphold the laws of the then society given that he was the king or you think patriarchy gave him pain relief against any emotional suffering? Another example, look at how they bash Rakshabandhan, a festival which signifies the brother-sister relationship of men and women while keeping quiet or paying lip service to forced Burqa of Muslim women by trying to prove it as an empowering practise?

    But why do feminists rant so much about patriarchy, even though it is pretty obvious that patriarchy is something of a natural order to get the maximum result out of both men and women? Feminism is just an ideological derivative of Marxism and is a part of Cultural Marxism, whose foundations were laid down in the Frankfurt school of economics and philosophy, which propounds an ideology of self-hatred, majority hatred and massive victimhood complex among varying groups based on their identity. According to their philosophy, if a system of society is operated by the majority, in Indian case which means Hindus, then such a system should be bashed as if it is bad to women and society whether or not such a system is good or bad for the happiness and prosperity of everyone. All they care about is the destruction of the culture and they market that destruction as liberation of women in the society in this case of feminism.

    Sadly Indian feminists are more than happy to import a failed ideology called feminism into India. Is it any wonder that as soon as the west adopted their “me me me” man hating feminism, the happiness levels of their women have gone down drastically because men do not want to be a part of their life any more thanks to feminists successfully brainwashing women into believing that prices of paper money makes them happier than having children?
    a1
    Decreasing women happiness: Stevenson and Wolfers, 2009

    The figures from the above paper clearly show a decrease in female happiness and specially the increasing gap between female and male happiness. The post-feminism generation in 2005 is much less happier than the generation of women in 1975. This paper also throws some light on what might have caused it which is shown in the figure below. While male trend has been stagnant for most questions, one can clearly see that females are unhappy about not getting enough time to spend with themselves.
    a1
    Source: Stevenson and Wolfers, 2009

    In essence, feminists don’t care about women and their happiness. All they care about is their ideology without caring for societal breakdown. Since patriarchy provides a massive source of stability to the society, they hate patriarchy and want to burn it. Hindus with common sense should overcome this blind belief in feminist rhetoric and decide objectively if patriarchy is indeed evil as it is made out to be by the feminists and their media coolies. The cost of societal breakdown is just too huge for them to ignore. Sadly, this view is now gaining ground among de-racinated Indian men, who are increasingly falling for western feminism and do not want to give credit and support to their wives who choose well-being of their children over becoming corporate slaves.

  • Why odd-even policy will fail in Delhi ?

    Why odd-even policy will fail in Delhi ?

    Indian population has been brought up on such a steady diet of government intervention and socialism that feel-good but ineffective policies are not only passed unopposed but actually appreciated widely. Odd-even car rationing system is one such law which is hailed blindly not only by Aaptards but also by some serious economists!

    Here is another long but inconclusive study by IIT.

    But there are serious issues with any policy evaluation study. The biggest problem usually faced under such evaluation is to make sure that apples are compared with apples and not with oranges. What it means in the case of pollution study is that you need to find a comparative group similar to Delhi 1-15 January 2016 to benchmark performance of odd-even rule. You cannot use the data from last year because it was another year and had different weather conditions. The above mentioned Harvard-Chicago study carefully addresses this problem by comparing Delhi’s pollution with Faridabad because the two are geographically pretty close and one implemented odd-even rule while the other did not. The IIT study although more comprehensive does not do well from an empirical perspective.

    But guess what- while this study does well in the textbook sense of evaluating a policy, it comes really short on economics principles. Why? Because it does not take into account the behavioural changes such a policy implementation will induce.

    Many if not most economic policies can lead to behavioural change and this is what makes any policy evaluation difficult. And what is the behavioural change in this case? It would be captured by pollution reducing measures like car pooling, people using more public transport etc.- the good things that a policy maker would expect. But on the other hand it would also lead to other behavioural changes like buying extra car, switching to two wheelers, etc which would effectively reduce the impact of this policy i.e. increase pollution again. It is the latter which socialism infected brains do not get.

    Another important point to notice here is that while the good behavioural changes will happen immediately in the short run because people need some time to adapt to policy change. Also, at least during January the uncertainty about the implementation of this rule ensured that people did not buy new cars immediately for the 15 day period and game the system because they were not sure that government will implement this policy permanently. But once government commits to implement this policy permanently, people will show bad behavioural changes and buy new cars or find other ways to overcome the system in the long run.

    Given the fact that behavioural changes will take some time to be adopted, it is foolhardy to even resort to any such policy evaluation studies based on short term. If you read the above studies before going through the whole article- sorry for wasting your time.

    So given that these short term evaluation reports can be trashed into junk, the question still remains- should Delhi go forward with the policy or not? Thankfully, the world is full of AAP style Tuglaq governments, which gives us a sneak peak into the results of any such policy. New York city grappled with the same problem in 2007 and evaluated car rationing systems around the world and its impact on pollution levels. Similar systems had been tried and tested in Mexico City, Bogota, Sao Paolo etc and this case study is based on these experiments.

    So, how did the Mexican experiment fare in the end? Well, people were smarter than the government thought and they just bought old vehicles from outside Mexico city, which effectively increased the pollution. In the Indian context, you should expect both purchase of old vehicles and two-wheelers to again increase the pollution levels after a temporary reduction.

    What makes this whole experiment even more stupid is that 4-wheelers contribute very little to the overall pollution levels in Delhi. Here is the break-up of particulate matter emissions from IIT study:

    Out of the transport sector, 4-wheelers contribute 16% to PM 2.5 emissions i.e. 3.6% of total emissions. Even if we say that odd-even policy would lead to 20% drop in PM emissions from cars, it would lead to 0.72% of total emission reduction in the long run.

    So now comes the biggest question that all Delhites need to ask themselves, is it worth buying a new car for 0.7% reduction in PM emissions? Is it worth the total cost that poor middle class families have to pay for buying extra cars, if this policy will only lead to 0.7% reduction in emissions? The bedrock of any policy evaluation exercise is what are the total benefit vs the total losses. All the above mentioned studies, short or long term, look at decrease in pollution levels as the only outcome. But there is welfare loss due to penalties like being forced to use public transport system or buying a new car. It is important to also calculate these efficiency losses for complete welfare evaluation of any policy. Reduction in pollution level should be compared against inconvenience and efficiency loss due to any such policy.

    But as the saying goes: The road to hell is paved with good intentions. So good intentions do much more harm in the end than one expects. Once accounting for all the pain people have to go through to implement odd-even policy, it seems like one more good intention will go wrong. Sadly, in the last 70 years India has seen enough of these good intentions go haywire. So why not just bear one more!

  • Myth of British Raj helping India

    Myth of British Raj helping India

    The history books written by Marxists in India are big puddles of lies but one of the biggest myth propped up by them today is that British rule was not completely bad as it helped modernize India, an otherwise backward and unsalvable country. This myth is so preposterous that any objective look at facts will demolish it in seconds. It is understandable that the British want to sanitize their role in the destitution, destruction and poverty they unleashed on India and portray themselves as benevolent souls who did their job of fulfilling white man’s burden, but what is sickening is that so many naive Hindus also seem to buy this propaganda, often aided by modern day Sepoys working for western masters in Guardian, DailyMail, New York Times, Washington Post and Indian Universities. But this should come as no surprise because the education system and the syllabus which is currently followed in Indian schools is largely under the control of Marxists, who don’t want to give credit to the Hindu kingdoms and rulers, for the want of not making their Abrahamic cousins like Mughals and British look bad.

    Given how these lies are sprouted and planted by the British and their coolies, it becomes very important to dismantle this false narrative they have been spreading, not just for the sake of truth but also for the restoration of common sense in Indian minds and freeing them up from the mental colonisation that they still suffer from, specially the minds which are brainwashed in the English medium schools. One of the biggest opposition to establishment of Hindu Dharma in India today is the false narrative that moving away from Hindu Dharma and fake secularization by British helped modernize India. It is important to set this record straight once and for all so that the future generations will know about what actually happened in India and how the British killed the Dharmic spirit.

    Myth 1: British gave India its educational infrastructure

    This is the most important myth in circulation today that India did not have any educational institutions before the advent of British and it was only with British help that some educational institutions could be set up in India. This is a ridiculous claim because India had educational infra-structure well before British had a proper language. Be it the Tamil Sangams of the Pandyan Kingdom in Tamil Nadu or the Takshila and Nalanda universities of North India, India had educational institutes before the hunter gatherer and barbaric British were civilised by Romans and later Vikings through their conquests. Irony here of course is that the Marxist historians who have no problem mentioning the existence of Buddhist centres of learning in India, also claim that it was British who gave educational institutions to India, while completely ignoring the destruction of learning centres in India by Muslim invaders.

    Of course the British apologists and their Indian Marxist coolies when confronted with these facts, change their goal posts and claim that Indian educational institutes were sub-par and that it was the British who modernised Indian educational institutes, implying that without British, India would not have gotten modern educational institutes.This conclusion is arrived at by looking at the state of Indian educational institutes of that time and comparing it with the Oxford and Cambridge universities of today. While it is true that Indian educational institutions of that period were not at par with Oxford or Cambridge, but the crucial point which is missed is that British institutions weren’t exactly that advanced either during the same period. For all chest thumping, one cannot ignore that the most of the big universities in Europe in 17-18th century were in their nascent phases and Indian institutes could have caught up with them in time, a fact which is completely disregarded.

    The actual impact of the British Raj was actually very negative on the Indian education system. British closed down most Gurukuls which were run by local villages and communities, through systematic plunder of resources and excessive taxation. A very good source material on destruction of Indian traditional schools is provided by Dharampal, who surveyed the state of traditional education systems in 17-18th century India. Dharampal carefully documented facts from the early British surveys on Indian schooling system. Below are his findings from Bengal and Bihar as reported in the first survey by Adam:

    a1

    Similar surveys from other regions very well document the fact that Indian education system was very robust in the 18th century and British systematically closed it down for preparing a class of Brown clerks. This systematic assault came in three phases. Firstly, they criticized the local educational system for its inadequacies, then killed it by withdrawing financial support or excessive taxation, which prevented the locals from supporting their own schools and finally used the missionaries to thrust upon India their own system saying it was the best. It is the last point which is still used by local Marxists to this day and supported through anti-Hindu laws like RTE.

    On top of this destruction of local schools, one also needs to know that the British and the rest of Europe only started pulling ahead post Enlightenment which started during the 16-17th centuries and modernized themselves during the 18-19th centuries. This is also the period when British conquered India and denied the same educational growth and modernization for India. The best way to demonstrate what India lost can be done by looking at performance of other countries which were not colonised by Europeans i.e. – Russia or Japan. Neither Russia nor Japan had massive educational institutions, which can be considered modern for that period. But since neither were colonised by Europeans, they were able to modernise their education which was denied to India during her 200 years of slavery under the British. In fact, most institutes British opened were for training clerks for the British Raj which helped them in exploiting India better by using local trained coolies instead of importing more English men from UK. No surprise that the current generation of Marxist historians trained by these institutions have such a fond memory and inclination towards them.

    Another lie which is peddled is that without British, the education would have been monopolized by only the upper castes and lower castes would have been left out. This is patently wrong for two reasons. One, this implies that British were egalitarian at that time. Fact is- they were not. In fact, the word caste itself comes from the Spanish word for it and it indicates the caste hierarchy at the time in Europe. The European societies were no less casteist at that time, just that they organised their castes a bit differently. Second, the literacy rate of Europe at the time was no better than India and the education there was elitist as well. It is only post manufacturing revolution and increase in services sector that the white men decided to extend universal education to create more workers and brainwash their population. It is very disingenuous to claim that Indian education system was elitist while praising British education as modern when it was itself elitist. In fact, by enslaving India, British denied Indians the chance to modernise the education like the non-colonised countries of the time like Japan(which had a much stricter caste system at the time), Russia, Austria etc. Dharampal again provides numbers from early surveys on caste breakup of students in higher-learning centres and it clearly refutes that lower castes were excluded from education as claimed by later Marxist historians:

    a1

    So in fact most of the problems of Indian lower castes today can be traced back to British Raj unlike what the British barbarians, without any guilt, and their coolies here claim- by effectively destroying 200 years of a country.

    Myth 2: British rule was no worse than rule by Hindu Kings

    This is another myth perpetuated by Marxists and British alike, surprise surprise, that British were as benevolent or as despotic as Hindu rulers. This is again patently false. British rulers treated their Indian subjects as colonial subjects to be exploited and enslaved unlike Hindu Kings who saw them as their own subjects. While all Hindus can rise up in the hierarchy under Hindu kings, British Civil Service was reserved for Goras for most of the time. Does this sound like equality to Marxist ears? The narrative of course is intentionally manipulative to make it out as if serfdom, in the form of lower castes, which was found in India under Hindu Kings was unique to India and as if the contemporary European countries at the time were egalitarian honeylands where queen and kings mingled and married commoners. It is important here to note that the same Europeans call Martin Luther, who brought the Lutheran/protestant reformation in Europe, a great reformer, when the same person had said that all peasants/serfs of Europe should be mass killed in the streets and it would be morally right.
    Bengal Famine, 1942

    Another important point to note here is that unlike the European countries which experienced massive unrest because their serfs/peasant populations i.e. lower castes of Europe, had been starved by their kings, India under Hindu kings had no such massive uprisings or orchestrated famines as Dharma was their guide and they hardly resorted to excessive taxation. There is no French revolution and murdering of kings in Indian history because the peasants were relatively well off under the Hindu Kings. Is it any wonder that the unrest for Indian peasants and lower castes increased under Mughal and British rule, leading to the overthrow of the former by Sikhs and Marathas and latter by Indians as a whole unlike the rule by Hindu Kings which experienced no such unrest. All else aside, India under the so called oppressive Hindu kings was an economic powerhouse with extensive artisan network and contributed 25% to the world GDP till the end of 18th century, before British strangulated the entire economy through export controls and killing all indigenous attempts at innovation. No surprise by the time British left there were hardly any local industries and India contributed a measly 2% to the world GDP.

    Myth 3: British helped reduce caste system and caste discrimination

    British helped end/reduce caste discrimination is perhaps one the worst misconceptions about the British rule even though the empirical evidence says otherwise. Be it the educational institutes or the living standards, British made the life of the Indian lower castes much worse post plunder and loot of India. Before the advent of British, the villages used to have free Gurukuls suppported by the villagers, where lower castes participated in equally high number but post British clampdown on all local school systems the lower castes were the worst hit and failed to get any education under scarce and controlled education regime of British. Even upper castes were hit by this scarcity but lower castes bore the maximum burnt of this policy and increased the disparity between different communities. Also it created fresh generations of lower castes by destroying local artisans, who were landless but skilled and were left without any income opportunities in the wake of British imposed trade barriers to support British industries.

    Second disastrous effect of British rule was the destruction of indigenous industries and their role in engineering massive famines across India. British were instrumental in the establishment of Zamindari system which destroyed the livelihood of millions of peasants/serfs across India who were almost exclusively lower castes. Is it any wonder that in many of the British engineered famines, the biggest hit were lower caste peasants who died in tens of millions? What happened to lower castes under British rule was literally a genocide. The same peasants/lower castes who were pretty content under Hindu Kings, were also pretty angry with the British and hence participated in huge numbers in the Indian independence movement. Also, in many areas, British actually worsened the caste discrimination by encouraging conversions from lower castes. In fact, missionaries actively took advantage of the famines engineered by British and offered poor suffering lower castes pounds of rice for converting them to their blood thirsty religion.

    But the biggest injustice to lower castes done by the British is the way they robbed India of the chance to reform the caste system, the way Japan reformed itself under Meiji restoration period. Reforms in Indian society had always happened without any foreign influence, just like under Buddhism and Jainism. By colonizing India during 17-20th century, Europeans robbed 300 years of history during which Indian society could have reformed itself rather than fight another group of barbarians. In fact, it was the same period during which the same Europeans reformed themselves through French revolution(self-glorified revolution), but Indians were robbed of their time and improve their society.

    Myth 4: British helped Hindus by ending Mughal rule

    This is a myth which even many Hindu nationalists believe that the Muslim tyranny in India came to an end as British uprooted the Mughal rule. But this is only true in NCERT textbooks which hardly mentions the glorious comeback by Hindu Kings. By the time British came to India, Marathas in combination with Sikhs, Jats and others had already ended the Mughal rule in India for all practical purposes. Maratha empire at its peak stretched from Punjab in the north to Tamil Nadu in the south and Bihar/Orissa in the East. Sikh empire had destroyed the Muslim strongholds of the north India, in west Punjab, Afghanistan and Kashmir. They also had started reconversion of Muslims during their period. In fact, Marathas had a very important role in Sanskritising the Marathi language which had been bastardised by the Persian and Urdu, the court languages of the Mughals. The situation for the Muslims in India was so dire that the one or two Muslim rulers left in India had to beg Afghan rulers to overthrow the Marathas and save them. One such Muslim ruler was Tipu Sultan, whom the Marxists and certain secularists shamelessly claim was a nationalistic freedom fighter. It is of no surprise that the Marxists in charge of Indian history make no mention of this at all and make it out as if British got India from Mughals even though the British got India slowly from Marathas through four Anglo-Maratha wars.

    That said, the actual effect of British rule on Hindus is very pathetic. British being Abrahamics themselves actively supported their Abrahmic cousins i.e. the Muslims over the polytheistic pagan Hindus. Even the two nation theory and Muslim league had massive patronage from British. More than that, they completely de-fanged Hindus for the Muslims to attack by actively banning Shastra Puja and other martial rituals. Also, British support to Gandhi cannot be disregarded given how he sowed Ahimsa i.e. non-violence meme in Hindu minds. The basis for today’s lopsided secularism which treats Hindus as the second class citizens in their own lands vis-a-vis Muslims and Christians was laid down during British rule by the British. Even Mughals didn’t destroy Hindu morale as much as British did. Whenever Mughals pressed too much against Hindus, they lost their control over the places, like how they lost to Marathas in the Indian mainland and Sikhs in the Northwest India. But under the guise of secularism, British cursed Hindus into slow death– much like a frog which if put inside boiling water will jump out immediately but if slowly boiled to death it will hardly realize the increasing temperature.

    Myth 5: British helped reformed social evils in India

    This is another blatant lie cooked up by British to justify their slavery of Indians as the benevolent white overlords civilising the savage browns in India, which is now perpetuated by their coolies and Marxist Indian historians. They usually claim that British helped end Sati, child marriage etc. But the truth is far more complex. Sati for instance was a social reaction by Hindu society against the Muslim invaders, who after killing the husbands took their wives and daughters as sex slaves. Since many Hindu women preferred honour over slavery, unlike the British coolies and Marxists of today’s India, they chose to end their lives in cleansing fire. Is it any wonder that prevalence of Sati was maximum in areas which were under maximal Muslim tyranny like Rajputana and Bengal. In the south, Tamil Nadu, Kerala etc Sati was practically unheard of and very rare and usually voluntary? The attempt to paint Sati as a pan-Indian problem was another theory planed by British and actively supported by Hindu hating Marxists. In fact, as soon as the Muslim menace was over, Sati started going down, and in places like Sikh empire and Maratha empire, Sati was banned even before it was banned in Bengal by the British. Purdah or veil i.e. another Muslim custom is again more prominent in north India when compared to the South. This again had its roots in Muslim rule and how Hindus had to adapt to fight their new enemy.

    Another social evil i.e. child marriage at that time is usually seen through the moral lens of today and often reviled as a nasty savage practice. Being the disingenuous rats, what the Marxists and British coolies usually don’t point out is that child marriage was the norm at the time among all societies. The average age of marriage for girls and boys at the time was 14-15 in Europe and 12-14 in India. But sadly it is an issue only in India as it helps beat down Hindus into submission. But even while talking about child marriage, these Marxists completely forget to tell that Indian children were not allowed to stay together even after marriage and girls were sent to groom’s house only after they achieved maturity i.e. 3-4 years post marriage. Of course, the analysis is not complete without actually giving the context for such marriages. Child marriages in India again grew as a direct reaction to the Muslim invasion of India and their virgin child fetish which forced Hindus to marry off their kids earlier than they would have liked.

    Myth 6: British modernised Indian industry by introducing railways

    British claim that without them colonizing and looting India, India would have never gotten railways. This again ignores the fact that most countries in the world have gotten railways without colonised- Russia, Japan, Persia etc. So colonization is not a necessary condition for adopting railways. And even the notion that British helped Indian industries to develop is ridiculous because the railways and roads built by the British were specifically built to loot and plunder Indian wealth faster and more efficiently. Some British even claim that more than 4 Tn£ British looted from India is justified as British invested back the money into railways, ignoring the fact that the very reason the British built those railways was to destroy and loot the 4tn£ from India and not to help Indians.

    It is a sad topic to even rebut because the very industrialisation that happened in Britain was done on the progressive de-industrialisation of India. British systematically wiped out Indian artisans and craftsmen, almost all of whom belonged to lower castes, often clipping their thumbs and limbs and destroyed their livelihood because their product was qualitatively superior to the industrialized British goods of that time. In fact most of the Indian famines which killed millions of lower caste peasants/serfs in India were because of British forcing the peasants to grow cash crops like jute, rubber, dyes, cotton etc as raw materials for their industries in place of the food crops needed by the peasants to eat. This slow starving caused by the British is even worse than the quick death given to Jews by the Nazis in world war-2. And worse than that is the defence of these famines by Marxist sell-outs like Amartya Sen, who tried hard to whitewash British role in engineering Bengal famine during World War-2.

    Not only did the Indian population starved to death and were condemned to poverty, they also were denied any avenue for industrial growth. They actively suppressed the industries in India and made India lose out on the 200 years of massive industrial revolution the European countries experienced during that time. They allowed only limited industries to be established and that too by their sycophants. Most of the Indian poverty today can be traced back to the lack of industrialisation due to technological denial and export controls by the British administration. Lets give an example of the British imposed restraints on Indian industries- even a writing pen was banned from being manufactured in India and had to be imported from Britain.

    It is by no accident that Indian economy went from 25% of world GDP in 18th century to 2% by the end of British rule. Some coolies shamelessly credit the British barbarians for bringing the modern sanitation to India. This is despite the fact that the sanitation in Britain was as worse as India of that time. By robbing the modernisation, industrialisation, economic growth and condemning the Indian population to poverty, British actually worsened the sanitation in the country by removing the scope for modern improved sanitation, which comes from economic growth.

    In fact, the real reason industrialisation hasn’t really taken off today in India is because many of Indian laws are a relic of colonial era, designed to prevent industrialisation and growth and is instead designed to exploit the poor masses. Only difference is, British stopped Indian industrialisation under colonialism and the Indian socialist leaders prevent industrialisation under the garbage of preventing rich people getting richer but the net result was and is the same. So thank Britain again for laying the template for bad industrial laws copied and parroted by Indian coolies of today.

    Conclusion

    To say that British rule was in anyway good for India is to spit on the toil of ancestors who fought against their tyranny. Sure British coolies, who benefited a lot by betraying their fellow Indians for few paisas, may look at them with massive nostalgia and Marxists being the ideological coolies without self respect might love to downplay the atrocities by the British. Amartya Sen can definitely whitewash the death of millions in Bengal famine for his Nobel prize, but self respecting Indians should stop desecrating the hard work of our ancestors.

    Even then, if this logic that any help by mistake is positive even if India paid through millions of deaths is to be used as an excuse for justifying British Raj, then it is equally justified that Indians invade and plunder British now and save British women from the British barbarians, who are 2000% as likely to rape them compared to Indians. Perhaps invading Britian and enslaving them will be doing humanity and themselves a huge favour.

  • Rearming Hinduism with pride

    Rearming Hinduism with pride

    Waking up to Wisdom: Rearming Hinduism

    Hinduism perhaps is always better lived first, and then understood, like any path of wisdom and spirit. Hinduism is often described as a way of life rather than a religion perhaps, for that reason. We do not begin with a theory or doctrine that we then try to bend the world to conform to. We are, one might say ‘spiritual anarchists’. We are ever evolving, we are ever free…….in our philosophy we have no Others, no reviled category for non-believers. We can be atheists, and Hindu. We can be monotheists and polytheists. But in all our freedom, we do, still have a sense of YOU, Alone, around which we have created all our philosophy, culture, art, science, and indeed civilization too.

    Juluri, Rearming Hinduism. Kindle edition

    Last summer I read a book that neatly organizes what I have been feeling for over two decades, ever since I left India. Since I grew up in India, as a Hindu, a very middle class, grandchild of Punjabi refugees, I heard more stories about India’s partition and its emotional, economic and social impact, than praising one religion over another. I also never heard a word against Islam in my house – instead I was told that at the time of the partition, while there was much bloodshed, there were also people who risked their life to help their friends, even when India’s division had been rendered enemies. I also heard that a relative of my grandfather’s was left behind during the partition, when he came to visit after two decades, that he had converted to Islam. The story was told as a matter-of-fact with any no malice. Growing up, I myself had Muslim friends and we frequented each other’s homes like family members. But I was asked to name my religion for the first time when I left India. I was also divided into a ‘race’ which many forms designed in the US, often used to gather demographic data, could not clearly identify (Asian vs. Indian).

    My first experience of witnessing how Hindus were much more open and respectful of different faiths came when during my first year outside of India, at a prayer held at my house, I offered the ‘puja thali’ to all those present, among who some who were not Hindus. I did it, as a part of courtesy to make it all-inclusive, because for Hindus, there is no proselytization. But the young American woman, who I assumed would be more open, since it is (wrongly) assumed that the west is more open than the east, refused to touch the thali. I understood and respected her decision, as we are taught in Hindu households, even though I had bowed in/to Churches, Mosques and countless Gurudwaras. To her credit, years after the incident, she admitted that she wished that she had engaged in that ritual. What was confusing was that alcohol parties, sporting one night stands, even dabbling in drug abuse was considered a part of growing up, even for the church goers, usually labelled, ‘getting it out of your system’. But, the fact remains that while there is religion, in the west, a degenerate behaviour both sexual and social is considered a part of ‘becoming an adult’. Does that not happen in dharmic countries? Especially since western way of life has been promoted as the universal way of life? Sure, but in a dharmic concept what we have acted on or even thought about cannot be erased by repenting. There is a clear understanding that every thought leaves an impression on our minds, which affects our future decision-making, and as a corollary others around us. For me such self-destructive habits are not against religion, but against dharma—all that upholds a healthy society. To avoid any anti-social, self-destructive activities, including indiscriminate physical intimacy, for us Hindus was not religious but cultural, and accepted social behaviour. One simple word explained it all—DHARMA. Engaging in those activities would destabilize a society by weakening the will power of the young, so we were all self-disciplined, self-regulated. That ideology was so strongly embedded in the Indian psyche that it was accepted as a cultural norm, across all religions in India, even those that believed that the slate of previous deeds could be erased by, repenting and surrendering to God.

    Later, came a series of conversations where I was subtly called an idolater. Since, I was not opposed to attending churches and listening to sermons, I often tuned into television sermons, even attended some Sunday sermons in churches with friends. There was always an emphasis on exclusivity of both Christianity and the Church. Being open minded I even wrote articles about finding similarities between Jesus as a Shepherd and Krishna as a Cowherd. In a multi-media class I photo-shopped Krishna as a silent witness to the birth of Jesus. For I had grown up on stories that Jesus was a recent incarnation of Vishnu—again an indication of openness and inclusivity of the Hindu tradition.

    But over the last several years I noticed that the campaign for maligning Hinduism has been getting stronger and meticulous, even as it is disguised under the idea of freedom and equality. There was little discussion of Hinduism as the most secular of faiths, since it celebrates both the believers and the non-believers, allows worshipping the divine in all forms, or without a form. Instead, in my encounter all I heard about Hinduism was that it was superstitious, and discriminatory. No links were made between Hinduism in secular fabric of India, or how Hinduism has contributed to the world through yoga, meditation, Ayurveda and mathematics. Instead, some televangelists, in the US, directly went on to say on Diwali, ‘India still lives in the dark, because they have not seen the light of Jesus.’ In 1999, the then Pope in his visit to India stated, ‘I hope Christianity takes root in India like it did in Latin America’, on the day of Diwali—the most sacred of holidays for Hindus. Other than being plain derogatory towards the oldest surviving civilization, it was a speech of aggression.

    Two years ago, on the streets of Dublin, I was stopped by a man holding a placard that said, ‘Jesus Loves You!’

    ‘May I talk to you? He asked in his American accent. I nodded.

    He was a kind looking, middle-aged man.

    ‘Have you felt the presence of Jesus today?’ He started.

    Having been a student in the US, I was very familiar with the talk. ‘I know what you are going to say, but I am not the person.’

    ‘What religion are you?

    ‘Don’t know what to say, because I have been known to say that I don’t really believe in God. I guess I grew up in a system that does not excommunicate you for saying that, so it works.’

    ‘Where are you from?’ Since it is hard today for many of us to be identified by the way we look, talk or dress, it’s a question that I am often asked.

    ‘Oh, well, I grew up in India…but…’

    Before I could finish, he said, ‘You must be a Hindu’

    Since I was in a rush, I nodded.

    ‘But Hinduism is really not a religion, I mean it is many religions in one, it is not really one religion….’

    Again, all this sounded familiar, and I had gotten in debates and arguments many times before. ‘Look, I have to rush, but if I find the time before I leave, we can chat over tea about your misinformation.’ I chuckled.

    ‘I’ll pay for the tea’ he said. I add this part here, to acknowledge that when these incidents happen, I acknowledge their humanity and their desire to be kind, no matter how driven by proselytizing.

    He also told me that his son-in-law was in India working with a mission, ‘bringing equality in rural areas, and doing the work of God’

    As I walked away, I wondered, what made him the authority on a religion that defines itself as Sanatana –without beginning and end. A life-philosophy that has survived the onslaught from religions of the book, communism and colonization for over a millennia! A life-philosophy that considers every grain of sand divine! A thought process that prescribes Karma Yoga, that can be the best anti-corruption tool, as one of the highest philosophies for our modern times.

    Karmanye vadhikaraste Ma Phaleshu Kadachana,

    ‘To work you have the right, not to the fruits thereof!’

    Who made this man the authority to say that Hinduism is not a religion?

    If this seems not enough evidence for the prevailing Hinduphobia, then here is another story. At one of the leading universities in the US, there is an organization, where nice and kind people arrange cheap tours around the US and sometimes as far as Canada and Mexico for foreign students. Sounds friendly and hospitable right? Well, they don’t tell you that often part of the package is ‘staying with a Christian family’ and attending Sunday church sermon. Many of these families are involved in going to ‘heathen countries’, especially India, which remains one of rare countries of unbroken civilization from 10,000 years ago. Still not harmful enough? Since only the word of ‘God’’ is being spread? Well, they actually have pamphlets about all ‘other faiths’ in their office. And the one on Hinduism states that ‘Hindus were colonized by the British, so they have an inferiority complex. And it is very important to uphold ultimate superiority of Jesus when engaging them.’ (paraphrased).

    How do these views on Hinduism and as a consequence of India, affect understanding of India as a nation?

    Shortly before 9/11, while lamenting US media’s narrow vision in covering democracies around the world, including their neighbouring Canada, when I mentioned barely any coverage was given to the world’s largest democracy, a student responded, ‘With all due respect, we are a republic and won our freedom, but India was ‘given’ its freedom by the British’.

    Disturbed by the response, I devoted the rest of the lecture to Hinduism inspired, and Gandhi driven concept of ‘satyagraph’ on the civil rights movement in the US. A Hindu concept, satyagragh means ‘holding on to the truth’, which combined with ‘ahimsa’ remains till this day the most emulated method of civil disobedience and demanding human rights by such noted activists as Martin Luther King, Mandela and movements such Occupy Wall Street.

    And to give an idea about the reality of Hinduism, here is another story of relevance, from when I was teaching. A Croatian-Canadian colleague who taught biology asked me very sincerely, ‘What is the Indian position on evolution?’

    After looking at my knitted brows she explained, ‘Because when I teach, Indian students are ones without any issue with the idea of evolution.’

    ‘Oh yeah, that might be due to Hinduism. We have no issues with contradictory statements, the world is filled with those.’ I shrugged ‘both arguments are up for empirical testing’.

    So, in that context of experiencing Abrahamic religions, struggling in my heart and conviction of ‘all religions being equal’ as we were taught, facing the reality that Abrahamic religions were not taught to see all religions as equal, living outside of India and constantly being treated as ‘those strange cow worshippers who are good at computers and math’, deeply respecting all faiths, but knowing fully well that there is an undercurrent of discrimination or else why would missionaries run to Asia, especially India to convert, why would new converts to Abrahamic religions refuse walking into a temple, being surprised and humbled by how in a Hindu dominated country we always celebrated Christmas with great pomp and show in every school and even had small Christmas trees at home, and being pained by the memories of those who had no qualms about getting drunk, but could not think of touching a ‘puja thali’ because it went against their faith—Rearming Hinduism, came as a saviour, as a tool for me to understand my own predicament, my own frustration and equipped me with a new pride at being a Hindu.

    Rearming Hinduism reminds us of that sensibility that we Hindus have inherited– that wisdom whose worldview is vast enough to accommodate conflicting viewpoints. Because it is that openness, that Hinduism has upheld which allows for gathering information on topics that we may disagree with, contemplate on that information and turn it into knowledge (even if that comes in the form of neti –neti—‘not this, not this’—the process of elimination) and then move on to turn it into an applied form of wisdom in every aspect of life, from rituals for the living and those for the dead, for our regard towards nature or care towards animals, for the love of poetry and pleasure and veneration of renouncing the world.

    Rearming Hinduism empowers us to question those whose purpose is to denigrate a philosophy merely because they cannot match or understand its depth and breadth. But more importantly Rearming Hinduism asks Hindus to reclaim their love for the murtis (not idols, as wrongly claimed), puja (not prayer as wrongly equated) and faith in experience of dhyaan (not just meditation) and mantras (Thank God, this one has not been mistranslated even though misunderstood).

    Rearming Hinduism asks Hindus to wake up to the wisdom of their tradition that has on many an occasion lit the world with concepts such as Ahimsa (non-violence), and Tvemeva (only you, only one). It further

    Authored by Vamsee Juluri, a Professor of Media Studies at University of San Francisco, the book comes at an apt time when Hinduphobia runs high, and unlike the pre-liberalization India, our popular media, often funded by foreign media conglomerates, has abandoned us. The result is a crisis that has not been defined yet, but is evident in a desecration of temples in the US, upholding Nazi rather than Hindu meaning of Swastika, and blaming all ills of contemporary Indian society on Hinduism rather than colonialism, and bland globalization that promotes values without any reference to the local and the national.

    Although directed towards (young) Hindus, the book is clearly a response to the controversy that has surrounded Hindu studies in American academy. Juluri responds to Wendy Doniger’s The Hindus: An Alternative History, point by point.

    The book is divided into two main sections other than a preface, which reminds the readers of antiquity of Indian civilization, and a conclusion, which gently points at the potential place of India in the world affairs. The first section of the book defines the myths and misconceptions of academia about Hinduism and the second provides an insider’s view.

    Each chapter provides a practitioner’s view of Hinduism to main arguments posited by Doniger, even when it establishes that Hindus are enraged at how they have been portrayed by some established scholars of the academy. Juluri argues that a book titled, ‘The Hindus’ not only says very little about how Hindus view the divine, but also distorts Hindus’ understanding of nature. It is as if the book tries to lay down the foundation to denigrate Hinduism.

    ‘It (the book) conforms to their own preconceived idea that nature is savagely violent, and so, naturally our Vedic ancestors too. –It is set up fundamentally so as to bend the narrative to the rest of Hindu history too, to make it seem like what they think it is rather than what it is really is. This simply is the official story of how Hinduism ‘progresses’ in their view: In the beginning, Hinduism was nothing more than primitive superstitious nature worship, those Vedic cowboys saw fire and called it Agni They feared lightning called it Indra! Fearful of things they did not understand, lacking mathematics, foresight, scientific acumen, and a weather app, perhaps, they sought to control what we know now to be simple natural phenomenon through quaint customs like Vedic chanting and human sacrifice.’

    Juluri, Kindle edition. Part I, 5, The Myth of Hindu History

    Juluri points out that espousing the now defunct Aryan theory, Doniger’s book speaks from a colonizer’s perspective who wants to undermine a tradition, by labelling it violent until saved by non-natives.

    ‘Instead of acknowledging the common, persistent Hindu sensibility of God as one, but also known through many names and forms, they try to break up the internal coherence of Hindu thought through a series of funny steps. In what might be better described as the ‘first denial’ rather than the ‘first alliance’ we are told by Doniger that the Vedas are pretty much stories of social oppression coded as gods and ogres. The feeling of devotion, which is what we associated with sacred stories, presumably does not come till the ‘third alliance’, centuries later. We have to wonder then if the people who chanted the same words that inspire devotion in us now felt something radically different simply because the experts say so. Or perhaps this is once again the civilizing fantasy at work; If Hinduism, like any religion at its best, seems to be about love, then it must be a recent development, a gift of redemption from more advanced civilizations.’

    Juluri, Kindle edition. Part I, 5, The Myth of Hindu History

    The book’s main argument is that scholarship is welcome but not vilification, discourse is encouraged but there must be an attempt to understand how we feel as Hindus. We cannot be asked to suppress our voice in the name of secularism- that only makes us angry, because—we re the ones who invented secularism.

    Blaming Christians and Muslims will not save us either. In fact, it is counterproductive and un-Hindu. It is true we maybe fed up with pseudo-secularism. But we cannot forget that we invented secularism in the sense of respect for all faiths long before other lands had even figured out such a thing was possible.

    ——–

    ‘I do not become any less Hindu for offering my pranam to Yeshu or his mother, or Allah, or Yahweh or Guru or Buddha or Mahavira. It is our sense of devotion, our cultivated sensibility about what makes a god a god that makes us who we are.’ Juluri, Rearming Hinduism. Kindle edition

    The book spoke to me, (as I am sure it will to others like me) who has felt isolated in today’s media driven world of half-baked secularism where contemporary global-mythology is based in non-dharma principles of individual at the expense of collective, secular (divorced from the sacred), at the expense of pluralism immersed in the sacred, and depicting lip-smacking violence as a way of promoting peace.

    Points raised by Juluri range from the very title of the book, ‘The Hindus: An Alternative History’ to misunderstanding of an Indian connection to the monsoons. If most of the bookstores on Hinduism are filled with voices from Doniger and her disciples, then how is a yet another book by her an alternative voice?

    Juluri points the reader towards the contradictions within academic theories related to Hinduism—namely there is no such thing as Hinduism, however,

    Hinduism is responsible for the caste system; in fact the two are identical. Hinduism is responsible for patriarchy and oppression of women. In fact, Hinduism was full of violence until Buddhism, Islam, and Christianity somehow civilized it. And before we forget, Hinduism isn’t an Indian religion. The Hindus were invaders of India.

    Juluri, Rearming Hinduism. Kindle edition, Part I, 1. The Academic Mahasabha

    To Doniger’s claims that Hindus associated monsoons with violence Juluri very eloquently asks the reader to see how monsoons have been depicted in the most popular mythology of India—its film industry. Were it something that Indians feared, would we be singing, dancing and romancing in the rains?

    The author addresses many misconceptions that the world holds about Hinduism both because of academic untruths and media’s sometimes slight and many times skewed portrayal, and provides scenarios of how a Hindu sees him/herself.

    Though written with respect for all, and with an intention of initiating a dialogue among the Hindus themselves, Juluri does not shy away from providing the possible western origins of this ‘Alternative History’, which makes for several passages that can make the reader smile, even as they make a point that has been overlooked so far. Each one of those arguments can be turned into a book.

    After all, when Hindu phobia is conquered, and the academy resumes its pursuit of truth, historians might find one day that it wasn’t just the zero and numerals that went West from ancient India, but its many humanistic ideals too. It is surely more than a coincidence that they got over their dark ages and had their Enlightenment just around the time they met us, but we don’t hear much about that at all.

    Juluri, Rearming Hinduism. Kindle edition

    Rearming Hinduism is free from academic jargon as it is written to awaken pride in Hindus both academic and non-academic which has laid dormant for too long. Juluri has clarified in interviews that the ‘arming’ in this case has to be done of the intellect and the conviction. It is important to mention that in times when every act of taking pride in being a Hindu is associated with being a fundamentalist. The cover of the book is an image of Narsingha with a broken arm from, Hampi. It is, as the book roars, time for Hindus to write their own story.

    Although written in simple, almost poetic language, to appeal to the lovers of Hinduism, the book can be used as a supplemental text for Hindu studies, inter-cultural communication and even international business. I personally think that the book will make an excellent gift for young Hindu children entering college. The book would re-arm the young adults as they leave home (or country) and enter a world that is known to be secular but is driven by the religion of profit and self-interest. It is important that the young and old Hindus alike start to assert their identity, even as we are being blamed for ills that we inherited from colonizers and invaders. Juluri makes it clear that the criticism of Hinduism comes under the guise of Hindu extremism –which is a mere tactic to make the practising Hindus feel ashamed.

    The attack on Hinduism today comes not from those who openly differ with us on religious grounds, but to a very generous device; they said they are not against Hinduism, but only against Hindu extremism. Most Hindus are against extremism too, and would have probably been happy to agree with them, if only that position had been really against extremism alone. But virtually every book, article, and argument made by the world’s supposedly leading, important, and celebrated intellectuals today says the same thing: in the name of criticizing Hindu extremism, they salvage the entirety of our religion. If they’re not challenged intellectually and culturally, soon our names, gods, goddesses festivals, sacred Scriptures, virtually everything that makes us who we are will be defined by them is something that it is not.

    Maybe a day will come when he will feel ashamed to bear our own names again, our worship are all gods and goddesses, freely. Maybe a day will come when Shiva’s trident can be easily interpreted as a weapon, or a Lingabhishekham at temples banned as a primitive act of sexual worship. Maybe a day will even come when even our breathing is deemed oppressive because it is saying ‘soham’ invoking the Swan of Goddess Saraswathi’ the last example might seem extreme, but the fact is that we almost lost a word like ‘Sanksriti’. We might lose a lot more too, if we do not recognize this.’

    Juluri, Rearming Hinduism. Kindle edition

    And the language of this war against Hindusim, Juluri points out, ‘is cloaked in the very language that guarantees us our rights today, that of freedom, equality, democracy and justice. It maintains one shrill, moribund position: if you are not with us, you are a fundamentalist’ (Juluri, 2014). In fact, any questioning of Hindu ideas, stories, festivals, and philosophy is labelled fundamentalism.

    Reading the book was a relief, as if someone had underlined the reasons for my anger and frustration of the years. I often fluctuate between being in love with Hindu Gods and being an agnostic, but no one who does not understand or practice Hinduism should tell me how or what I feel when I bow my head to the Sun or a murti of Shiva.

    When I finished the book I thought, if I were to meet anyone now who tells me that Hinduism is not a religion or without any coherence, or a religion of oppression, my very polite response would be, to start with a question ‘But who made you the authority?’ I would also declare proudly, ‘We are a living religion, –and we are growing¨.

    And I would definitely, very eloquently recite the following sentence from the book—

    Hinduism after all has never been about ‘us or them’, but only about us and them, and that ‘them’ includes not just people of other nations or religions, but also those living beings of different species too.

    – The examples above are based on author’s personal experiences. Most of the quotes in the article are taken from Vamsee Juluri’s book Rearming Hinduism.

  • Schrodinger’s Intellectuals

    Schrodinger’s Intellectuals

    Schrodinger’s cat- the classic thought experiment in Physics about indeterminacy of cat being alive or dead is being played out in reality in Indian intellectual space on everyday level and the mental gymnastics displayed by some of the so called public intellectuals is of such Olympic quality that one is confused whether they are really intellectuals or not. If Indian gymnasts had shown this flexibility instead of these intellectuals, India would have definitely topped the Olympics table.

    The problem is that there are far more Nehruvian and Marxist zombies masquerading as intellectuals than there are real intellectuals. For every true intellectual, the media clique has manufactured many more fake intellectuals to serve their own goals. For eg. Rana Ayub and her other media friends are hardly intellectual but they are part of a well oiled oligarchic ecosystem which ‘real intellectuals’ are beneficiaries of.

    People have been consciously reticent to name names when it comes to Islamic terrorism, in a country which has been so severely plagued by it but one Dadri happens and it doesn’t take time for terms like Hindu Taliban to fly off from Marxist pie-holes while the ‘intellectual’ jury is still out on whether using the term Muslim Taliban is appropriate or not.

    The scarcity of intellectuals on the left has reached to such glorious level that they now have to borrow fascist Advani to make arguments in defence of the cottage industry of Marxist liberalism in India.

    If you aren’t convinced that the intellectual class of India has been a dishonest lot, if not incompetent, you only need to contemplate why, despite it having been explicitly mentioned in the constitution that the nation shall strive for national integration and a uniform civil code, not a single intellectual in the history of India has spoken up for its implementation?

    The fact is that people have figured out that the holy grail of intellectualism in India is to abuse the majority community since it is the non-violent of the lot, and win laurels for themselves.

    If a billion Hindus have learnt to cultivate the thick skin to digest labels like Hindu Taliban for something they were not culpable for, in the interest of FoE, isn’t it damning that these self-professed Marxist intellectuals who wear FoE on their sleeves can’t grow out of their persecution complex and learn to take some well deserved criticism?

    सदियों की ठंढी-बुझी राख सुगबुगा उठी,
    मिट्टी सोने का ताज पहन इठलाती है;
    दो राह,समय के रथ का घर्घर-नाद सुनो,
    सिंहासन खाली करो कि जनता आती है।

  • West trying to destabilize Bangladesh through atrocity news

    West trying to destabilize Bangladesh through atrocity news

    Bangladesh is and has always been a violent state. But suddenly the daylight beheadings in Bangladesh are making international news. The world did not bat an eyelid when in 1971 millions of Hindus were raped and murdered but now stray incidents of Islamic barbarity are making big headline news across the world.

    The article asks why international media suddenly began emphasizing attacks on minorities and activists in Bangladesh.

    It argues that the sequence of attacks on foreigners, priests, Buddhists, Hindus and gay activists was either planned or highlighted to produce maximum international outrage.

    It speculates that Western governments and intelligence agencies were trying to create an ISIS narrative that could justify an Arab Spring-style colour revolution against Sheikh Hasina.

    The article refers to a dossier allegedly given by Narendra Modi to Hasina warning that a large western country was attempting to destabilize Bangladesh.

    It further argues that the killing of a gay-rights activist was particularly useful for mobilizing a western audience, because gay-rights narratives have far greater political salience in the West than in much of Asia.

    The article concludes that instability in Bangladesh would harm Indian security by forcing India to divert intelligence and military resources toward its eastern border.

    By-Navnit Kundu

    Image credit:
    http://www.capitalotc.com/bangladesh-atheist-blogger-killed-as-fears-of-radical-islamism-grow/212549/

  • Game theory- Why Hindus should vote out BJP in all local elections

    Game theory- Why Hindus should vote out BJP in all local elections

    May 2014 was the time when Hindus thought that their time had finally come when they gave an overwhelming majority to BJP in Lok Sabha elections. Sadly the dream did not last for too long as it is already two years since the LS elections but there is hardly anything concrete on the ground which can be used to say that BJP has worked on a pro-Hindu agenda. Yes, it is not anti-Hindu like Congress but it has hardly shown any respect to the genuine Hindu agenda. RTE is still hounding Hindu schools, temple money is still looted by the government, and on top of that NGOs and courts are mounting a direct assault on local Hindu traditions like Jallikattu, the Shani temple or Sabarimala. We hear noises about students shouting anti-national slogans in JNU but none of the ring masters got sacked nor any changes made to history books. On top of that Smriti Irani boasts it as her achievement that she has not yet touched the books circulated by the UPA government.

    What makes it worse is the meek behaviour of BJP which does not think even once before abandoning its real Hindu followers. It has started to think that it was the development plank which made it win the last elections and it will make it win again in the future. Seems like BJP is hell bent on following the course it charted during the 2004 elections by projecting “India Shining” and getting dumped by the voters. So not only has BJP distanced itself from supporters like Kamlesh Tiwari in the real world, but it also frequently disowns its social media followers.

    The reason that core Hindus find themselves in this position is because BJP knows that these supporters have no outside option other than BJP. All other options like electing Congress are not only anti-Hindu but are also much more disastrous to the economy. So BJP thinks it has a captive vote base as hardcore Hindus have nowhere else to go. Also, since BJP still follows the left-dominated liberal agenda once the elections are over, these Hindus are increasingly seen as a liability rather than an asset. This explains why career politicians don’t think twice before abusing them.

    So, what is the way out? Core Hindus cannot let BJP walk around and renege on all the election promises. Thankfully Game Theory comes to our rescue. Dharmics need to use the “Stick and Carrot” principle from Game Theory to discipline BJP’s behaviour. In simple words — how does the Stick and Carrot principle work? Imagine you are the manager and have to ensure that the interests of your employees are aligned with your goals. The simple way to ensure this is to reward them for good behaviour (carrot) while punishing them for bad behaviour (stick). Sticking to just rewards or punishment alone will not ensure good behaviour.

    In BJP’s case, electoral wins serve as the carrot but there is no stick to punish them when they deviate from ideal behaviour. This means Hindus need to act strategically and develop a stick to beat BJP into submission so that it implements their agenda. BJP thinks that its Hindu voters are captive and have no other choice and hence can take their support for granted. This needs to change and Hindus need to punish BJP for bad behaviour. The carrot is more than evident — the 2019 LS elections. But what should be this punishment or stick?

    Core strategy:

    1. Punish BJP for all deviations from the Hindu agenda by defeating them in all local body elections (like panchayat and municipality) till 2019 to send a message to their local leaders. This will generate feedback from the ground that BJP cannot take Hindus for granted. Small BJP leaders get benefit from local elections and so local elections matter a lot to them. Also, they need to be motivated for campaigning in big elections so top BJP leaders need to keep them in good humour. So, if you defeat these foot soldiers it will send a direct message to the high command in BJP that Hindus are not stupid. Don’t select Congress or AAP — go for good local candidates.
    2. Let BJP win state elections so that it does not have the excuse of no majority in Rajya Sabha. Although this is a bad excuse — because like Congress, BJP too could have used CBI to implement its agenda — since BJP fanboys almost always cite this reason for BJP’s inaction it is essential to give them a chance to have majority in RS. Although it is most likely BJP would do nothing even with RS majority given how it has kept quiet on all core Hindu issues. Temple control and RTE are not even anti-minority issues to be shot down in RS if BJP plays its cards well. In any case, give them one chance to prove themselves.
    3. Defeat high-profile traitors like Jaitley, Fadnavis etc. in state as well as national elections. There should be zero tolerance for high-profile sell-outs. Make sure that Dev Fadnavis is destroyed for his weak-kneed response on the Shani temple issue. Shivraj should be defeated for selling out Hindus on the Bhojshala issue. Similar punishment should be meted out to Jumla Rajnath and Jumla Irani for their inaction. Let local parties like Shiv Sena and other pro-Hindu parties win on seats against these big shots to send a clear message that Hindus have zero tolerance for deviation. Also ensure that hardcore Hindus like Uma Bharti and Yogi Adityanath are elected with thumping majorities to send an even clearer message.

    Also, economic right is still a minuscule fraction of BJP supporters as most of its supporters are actually core Dharmics. So core Dharmics have all the shots to call. Punishing local BJP leaders in local elections will not dampen efforts to implement pro-Hindu policies at the top either. So this game is for Hindus to win. It is about time Hindus stopped complaining about democracy and started using democracy to their advantage.

    Sticking to the above strategy will give Hindus a say in the formation of policies post elections and keep the top BJP leaders on a tight leash. They should be given the choice between perform or perish. If 15% Muslims can enforce their agenda and make politicians dance to their tunes, there is no reason that Hindus can’t do it if they are strategic. And if Hindus stick to this carrot and stick approach, even if BJP doesn’t deliver for core Hindus then some other party will rise to fulfil their political agenda in the future.

  • Hate Bollywood for not making these war movies

    The year was 2001 and two movies were fighting against each other for setting the industry on fire — Gadar: Ek Prem Katha vs Lagaan. At the end of the day Gadar starring Sunny Deol beat Aamir’s Lagaan hands down in box-office profits as Gadar smashed all the records of that time and sold more tickets than all other movies except Sholay in the history of Indian cinema. Sunny Deol’s macho performance against barbaric Pakistanis probably sealed the deal in Gadar’s favour as the Indian audience preferred it over Aamir Khan’s character of slow cricketer in Lagaan.

    The success of Gadar should have given the Indian movie industry a good template to generate profits by kicking the ass of Pakistanis — which they more than deserve and which has historically been proved in all wars post-independence. But this template has hardly been used post-Gadar as Bollywood is more than happy importing Pakistani artists and doing “Aman ka Tamasha”. This sell-out of Bollywood essentially means that they have chosen to close their eyes to all Indian achievements in the past 70 years. Not only have they ignored the past 70 years but there are hardly any movies on our freedom struggle. Given this utter neglect of our history, it hardly surprises that students in JNU can get brainwashed and chant “Bharat ki barbadi tak” slogans, thus disrespecting the spirit of our forefathers who laid their lives for our better future.

    Why has Bollywood — which always wants to portray itself as national cinema and ignore local industry — failed to represent this nation of 1.2 billion people? Why is it impossible for it to produce anything which reflects Indian cultural and military superiority? Bollywood is more than happy to copy Hollywood trash, but why does it not learn from it and produce movies to respect our war veterans? It is hard to imagine that Indians would not cherish watching another movie like “Border” based on historical events and stories. Sadly, Bollywood prefers to glorify Jihadis in movies like Haider and act as a fifth column of ISI in creating propaganda against the Indian state.

    1. Indo-Pak war (1971)

    It is surprising that Indians have failed so miserably to cover this glorious display of courage and capability of the Indian Armed Forces. It broke the back of Pakistan completely and forced it to abandon the idea of direct military confrontation against India. Let’s look at the themes one can explore on this war.

    • Genocide of Bangladeshi Hindus: If Schindler’s List can be used by Jews for propaganda, no better way to project the plight of Hindus during this war. A movie on this genocide will completely tar Pakistani reputation forever and represent them for what they are — barbarians.
    • International power play: This war was fought under great international pressure where Indira Gandhi was called bad names by Americans for her courage. Not only did India superbly manage international pressure, it managed to create Bangladesh overcoming all these odds. Is there a better way to portray “Nari Shakti” of India when the US is still struggling to elect a female President?
    • War theatre: This is such a rich topic to explore. The Indian Army achieved its objectives in such a short period of time and captured 90,000 POW that it is a tragedy that no one ever tried to put it on the silver screen. Operation Trident by the Indian Navy — where they destroyed the Karachi harbour and caused massive damage to Pakistan’s capability — would make such an amazing thriller.
    Indian soldiers — contextual poster
    Contextual replacement image. The original embedded media could not be recovered; this image does not reproduce the original dataset or copyrighted frame.

    2. Indo-Pak war (1965)

    This was another glorious war effort by Indian soldiers. In the aftermath of defeat against the Chinese in 1962, this war was a huge adrenaline boost for a poor and lost country trying to rediscover its strength.

    • Genius of PM Shastri: Pakistanis always thought that India is a country of banias ruled by a nobody called Shastri. But Lal Bahadur Shastri showed his true mettle and proved his name Bahadur beyond doubt when he gave orders to march into Punjab to ease pressure on J&K. His death in Tashkent would make another great story and debate to explore.
    • Battle of Asal Uttar: This was the battle of battles in this war where Indians won by sheer courage and tactics against a much better armed enemy. It was the biggest tank battle post World War 2 — Indians were not only outnumbered but also had old Centurion tanks from WW2, while Pakistan marched with the new Patton tanks supplied by the US. This battle settled the debate once and for all as Pakistan never regained its confidence after it.

    3. Kargil war (1999)

    This was the first war where Indians saw some action directly broadcast on their TV sets at home. A few movies were made in the immediate aftermath of this war but since then everyone has forgotten it.

    • Lahore bus backstab: PM Atal Bihari Vajpayee went with huge fanfare to Lahore on a bus to create permanent peace between two hostile nations. What did he get in return? He got backstabbed by General Musharraf who planned the Kargil war while Vajpayee was eating biryani with Nawaz Sharif. This story needs to be told again and again to hammer the lesson into Indian heads — Don’t trust Pakistan!
    • Mountain warfare: Which other country can boast that they wrestled back peaks at more than 5,000 m by sheer bravery and love for the nation? We would all like to hear the story of Captain Vikram Batra — the “ye dil maange more” guy — on the big screen.
    Mountain warfare — contextual poster
    Contextual replacement image. The original embedded media could not be recovered; this image does not reproduce the original dataset or copyrighted frame.

    4. Siachen Glacier

    When we are talking about mountain warfare, how can we forget about the Siachen Glacier? Ask any mountaineer about their love for mountains and whether they would like to visit the largest glacier in the world called Siachen — you would not hear a single No. But ask our soldiers who live there night and day and they will explain that it is not a pleasant experience in any way. So why do they live there? For the strength and glory of India!

    • The history: Learn about the great spy games on how this area became disputed when Indians discovered that Pakistanis were buying low-temperature clothing and boots in large numbers on western markets in 1987 and decided to outsmart them to capture the highest ridges on the glacier.
    • Operation Rajiv: One can only imagine the nail-biting fight of our soldiers under freezing cold conditions. Isn’t it surprising that no one has tried to make a movie on Param Vir Chakra winner, the legendary Bana Singh, who captured the highest post (6,447 m) on this glacier — later renamed Bana Top in his honour?
    • War against nature: Indian soldiers hardly care for the weak Pakistanis any more on this glacier. Their biggest enemy is the freezing cold and uncertainty of the glacier. We want to hear their true stories and feel proud of our soldiers of steel.

    5. Indo-China war (1962)

    Great nations not only remember their success stories — what sets them apart is their appetite to hear about their failures. This war which India lost due to the follies of its leaders should serve as a reminder again and again.

    • Nehru’s blunders: How India and China went from being best buddies chanting “Hindi-Chini bhai-bhai” to the worst of enemies should be a classic textbook story to tell our kids. The role of Nehru and V.K. Krishna Menon in ensuring India’s defeat should be looked at from a fresh perspective.
    • Brave hearts: This was one war where our soldiers were heavily outnumbered as well as under-equipped. But what a fight they put against all such odds. PVC winner Major Shaitan Singh still lives among the memories of soldiers serving around the Chushul area. Old Bollywood did much better in waking up the spirit of a defeated nation by producing “Haqeeqat”.
    1962 war memory — contextual poster
    Contextual replacement image. The original embedded media could not be recovered; this image does not reproduce the original dataset or copyrighted frame.

    Just reading this piece will fill you up with emotions for our brave soldiers, so you can easily imagine what movies on the above mentioned topics can do for the nation. Also, there is no better way to pay homage to our dead soldiers by celebrating and remembering them through popular culture. You too will hate Bollywood now for failing to give Indians a chance to celebrate their unity and courage. But this cannot go on forever and we need to make our voices heard to bring this change in our movie industry. So trend #anti-national Bollywood to take this message further.

    Jai Jawan, Jai Kisan

  • Gender wars by feminists are nonsense in Indian context

    The post modern application of feminism looks at male-female relationships from a Western point of view and almost always disregards and disrupts the pre-existing structures in third world society. The only measure which is then left for the third world champions of feminism is to measure themselves against the standards of modernity as accorded to their western counterparts. This whole exercise is taken with blatant disregard of the fact that modern feminism practised in the west has an Abrahamic background and misses the important cultural nuances due to deep belief that there is only one right form of gender relations i.e. turning women into men. This belief is so deep that Nordic countries like Sweden are taking it to the extreme where they are erasing sex differences even in spoken and written language and evolving gender-less pronouns.

    So now the question that should arise in any healthy mind is — should the world go down the Swedish way i.e. mindless adoption of erosion of male-female boundaries? If you see how Swedish women are openly embracing misogynist Muslim men from third world countries and rejecting their local men, it seems biology does not agree with this Swedish experiment. But even before answering the above question, one should ask whether third world countries accept the definition of subjugation of women by men as propounded by western feminists?

    Popular culture and art in any society is the true mirror of the prevalent social practices. So, if you go back a few years before the rise of narcissistic and crass humour of AIB, India produced some great stand up comedians. One of them is Surendra Sharma who devoted his whole life to produce humour through husband and wife jokes. A common theme that runs through his entire work is to present the miserable conditions of the husband, thanks to the over-bearing nature of his wife.

    Given the popularity of his acts among the middle class, it is not unwise to assume that his jokes touched a chord among the masses where everyone could relate to his act at some level. Let’s look at another example from popular comics for kids called “Chacha Chaudhary”:

    Indian social satire — comic context
    Contextual replacement image. The original embedded media could not be recovered; this image does not reproduce the original dataset or copyrighted frame.

    There are three nuances which come out of this cartoon immediately:

    • Even though women were/are not working, a lot of them control household finances.
    • The wife can be tough and even fight with a robber.
    • Husband and wife regularly play jokes on each other and pull each other’s leg.

    So if paid attention, one can go through a large number of similar narratives presented in the popular culture of the past. This has not been different from the lived experiences of many of us. The fact of the matter is that two generations ago, most men and women worked together both at home and in agriculture depending on their field of expertise. Most of them had tough lives but hardly any time to reflect on or cry about gender inequality. This is true even for the current generation of poor farmers, where despite great efforts of foreign NGOs and domestic feminists, women hardly show any inclination to react to post-modern feminist concepts due to their lived experiences which are orthogonal to what the feminists want them to believe. The destiny of these men and women are tied together by their social and economic circumstances to such an extent that western feminist notions will hardly achieve anything for them.

    Looking back now, all of us can share stories on how these relationships played out in real society. There would hardly be any middle class person who would not remember the banter and jokes shared by their uncles and aunts about who controls the finances or who to convince for buying stuff. Many people growing up in a joint family would have had a chance to see these dynamics from much closer — where grandmothers would make most of the financial and other social decisions for the family, usually with the help of one of their sons. The grandfathers on the other hand would be more than happy to mind their business and not get involved in this day to day decision making. It is no surprise that many of these old ladies were respected not only in their own family but consulted for various matters even by distant relatives. This is not to say that there were no male-headed households, but to point out the diversity. This point is actually more nuanced as the male or female headed household can still have different spheres of influence for each spouse where they enjoy complete autonomy and domain expertise. Does it surprise you now that the middle class finds it more than difficult to swallow the atrocity literature sold by western feminists?

    Yes, women had to sacrifice in a lot of cases but so did men. The power relationship between men and women was nuanced and worked at different levels, which white women would never understand due to the individualistic society they grow up in — where each individual is benchmarked against the other and where the discussions have just been confined to rights while duties have been completely forgotten. But can one establish Dharma by talking about rights while maintaining silence about duties?

    Thankfully Indian women are smarter than white feminists and their sepoys because they evaluate life based on their lived experiences. Thanks to feminism the west is watching over silently as their family system is completely broken. Now imagine how India would be undone if the same toxic ideology is applied here. In the absence of social security, India would not even have the luxury to exist for a short duration post breakdown of the marriage institution. The only reason the west can still export this disruptive ideology is because it has some time before it disintegrates completely due to loss of family culture. Actually one can look at black culture in the US to predict what would befall their whole society once men-women relationships are completely broken down. The rise of post-modern feminism completely destroyed the black family system and blacks are nowhere close to the social standards that they enjoyed in the 1970s. But rather than correct the situation and bring these families together, blacks are increasingly given further overdoses of feminism, disregarding the fact that it was feminism which lies at the root of all their problems.

    To counter this narrative, some Native American women have taken a lead in the US. The clarity of thoughts presented by them is astounding, when compared to the blind copycat behaviour shown by Indian feminists, who have nothing but contempt for everything traditional. Some of the arguments of these native women are well documented by @bhimakarma in his series of tweets:

    Native American Civil Rights Activist Lorelei Means on how feminism is just another avenue for asserting colonialism
    — bhimakarma (@bhimakarma), April 17, 2016
    “We are American Indian women, in that order.” – Lorelei Means
    — bhimakarma (@bhimakarma), April 17, 2016

    The above quote well summarizes how this nouveau colonialism can be defeated only by realizing that men and women share the same destiny, especially under threat from western ideological constructs. Blind application and promotion of atrocity literature will only lead to further subjugation of Indian masses. The above paragraphs should be an eye opener for all Indians that both men and women were equally colonized by the British, who systematically destroyed the Indian economy and impoverished us. All attempts to create a rift between the two will only lead to recolonization of our land again.

    Before we close, it is important to note why militant feminism, the way we identify it today, arose in the west. Why do white feminists want to turn their women into men? One has to look at the history of Abrahamic religions to understand this development. Since there is no equivalent female Goddess in Abrahamics and women are inferior to men in their framework, it is more than understandable why these women felt aggrieved and developed militant feminism. This also explains why they want to become men and out-compete them rather than form a mutually beneficial relationship. On the other hand, this is not the case with Hindu households or Hindu religion. For every household, both Shiva and Parvati serve as a source of inspiration on how to run the household. For every Ram, there is a Sita and Vishnu is almost always venerated alongside Lakshmi.

    Yes, there are problems in Indian society but there is no reason to decouple men and women and chart a collision course for them. Militant feminism has failed in the west and has led to the doom of their families and societies — and it will fail everywhere else in the world as well. Indians should act smart by looking at the degeneration of western society and learn from their mistakes rather than burn their own fingers while trying to experiment with a failed foreign ideology which makes no sense for their culture and society. So next time you read atrocity literature, just think about how the land of feminism i.e. the US is yet to elect a female President, while India gladly elected Indira Gandhi — who slapped both Pakistan and the US in the 1971 war — as Prime Minister to lead a young country.

  • When Islam apologist Barkha got slapped hard

    When Islam apologist Barkha got slapped hard

    All civilizations in the world have been patriarchal, but none can be as loathing and dismissive towards women as Islam. It is then only possible with extreme mental gymnastics that one can even get the idea to compare other religions with Islam, stuck in the seventh century, when talking about the position of women in respective religions. The draping of women under a tablecloth called burqa should be more than enough for any sensible person to fold chips and devote an entire life to solving problems faced by women in Islam. But not if you are a cultural Marxist like Barkha Dutt, who has refined this art of mental gymnastics to bring Hindus into every discussion under the sky. Don’t be surprised if next time she links Manuwadi Hinduism with the disappearance of whales in the Pacific.

    Sadly, this time on a panel discussion on women in Islam, she was slapped hard by Ayaan Hirsi Ali when she tried her usual gymnastics to divert attention from Islam by talking about misogyny in Hinduism. Here is the slap:

    See the extreme contempt this sold-out brown nigger has for Hindu traditions. If one believes Barkha, then a ban on entry of women in a minuscule number of Hindu temples is equivalent to genital mutilation practised in half of the Islamic population. But in this panel discussion there were no takers for her shenanigans and she was quickly shot back down to earth when she tried to divert attention from Islam.

    The fact of the matter is that even if India wholeheartedly converts to Christianity or Islam, as most Marxists in India want, they would strictly remain below white masters in the international hierarchy. This tight slap on Barkha should explain that there is no space for sold-outs like her in the world. She is just a useful pawn in the grand scheme of things for Western masters and any self-respecting person would treat her accordingly.

    Respect is commanded. Hating yourself and your culture like cultural Marxists is not exactly the best way to get respect, as evidenced by this video, where Ayaan shows absolute contempt for this cultural Marxist. Maybe cultural Marxists should introspect whether being coolies without any self-respect is worth the brownie points they win from white masters.

    See the full video below.