This is the second article in this series on explaining the problems with emergence of a real Hindu party. Read Part 1 and Part 3.
The media and intellectual environment has been so anti-Hindu in India that most issues which pass off as pro-Hindu issues hardly pass the smell test when looked at carefully. Given this hostile environment, it is no surprise that entire generations of Hindus have been brainwashed and converted into such meek cows that they have lost the mental faculty to challenge and question the narrative which goes around as pro-Hindu.
The benchmark criterion to decide whether a policy is pro-Hindu or not is to look at it and ask the question: are Hindus the only beneficiaries of this policy? If a policy helps all Indians then it cannot be pro-Hindu, so call it a nationalistic policy. Similarly, all policies which bring Hindus to a level playing field with other religions are again not pro-Hindu as they only correct historical bias against them, so call them secular. Using this criterion we can now look at some long-standing issues to understand whether they are pro-Hindu issues or not.
Uniform Civil Code: It does not help Hindus explicitly in any way. Hindu civil law is almost modern and Hindus will hardly gain anything if Muslims cannot divorce their wives through triple talaq or have four wives. It is a secular issue and if India really is a secular country, as the libtards claim, then they should support implementation of UCC. Implementation of UCC will not really help Hindus but it will definitely bolster the secular image of India by dismantling religion-specific civil laws.
Article 370: J&K as a region is important for national security given that it can connect India to Central Asian republics and also provides a connection between India’s two big rivals, China and Pakistan. It is in India’s interest to integrate J&K completely into the country and wrest back PoK. So again, repealing Article 370 does not help Hindus alone and is an issue of national importance. Any person opposing it is helping Pakistan and China against India and weakening India’s security environment.
Right to Education Act: Hindu institutions are taxed under this law while minority institutes have no obligation to give quotas to SC/STs or follow the stringent requirements of this law. Minority institutions are thriving thanks to this law while thousands of Hindu schools have closed down. So again, repealing this law will put Hindus on par with other minorities. It is therefore a secular issue and not pro-Hindu in any way. In any other country with a basic framework of law, this discriminatory tax on schools operated by the majority would have been quashed by the courts on first hearing. It was in fact quashed by the courts before Congress brought in the 93rd Amendment to strangle and kill Hindu schools.
Temple Control: Money from Hindu temples is siphoned off and used by greedy governments while they pay Hajj subsidies to Muslims. Churches and mosques are free to receive all donations they can and use their own funds in whichever way they deem important. Hindu organizations, on the other hand, are helpless against this state intervention and watch meekly while government takes away their donations. So freeing temples and putting them on par with other religious institutions is not a pro-Hindu but a secular agenda, requiring the state not to rob money from temples and hand it out as Hajj subsidy.
Jallikattu ban: This is an assault on local traditions while minorities are allowed to mutilate small children under freedom of religion. A secular state has no mandate to dictate how religious festivals should be organized. Freedom to practise one’s religion and celebrate festivals in ways one deems important is not a place for government intervention, which again makes it a secular issue. If Muslims can slay thousands of meek goats on Bakrid, it reeks of hypocrisy when courts challenge healthy Jallikattu bulls under the pretext of animal rights.
Some of the above-mentioned issues have been paraded around as pro-Hindu issues, but a careful look demolishes the whole narrative. Most gospel truths about pro-Hindu policies are taken at face value by gullible Hindus, while actually they hardly help Hindus in any way. It is like asking a runner to start 20 metres behind everyone else in a 100-metre race. When this runner demands to start at the same position as everyone else, the thekedars in the racing fraternity rule against him, citing that they cannot put him on par with other runners as it gives him an undue advantage, completely ignoring the initial bias.
Given the above-mentioned policies don’t explicitly help Hindus, what can be classified as pro-Hindu policies?
Ram Temple: This is a long-standing issue and important for collective Hindu consciousness given the importance of Lord Ram in Hindu history. Hindus are the rightful owners of the land in Ayodhya. One random mosque hardly counts for Muslims and they don’t think twice before demolishing one in the Islamic nation of Saudi Arabia. It is Muslim iconoclasm which stands in the way of showing a big heart and allowing Hindus to build the temple of one of the most important Hindu icons at his birthplace. In case government decides to solve this issue in favour of the Hindu temple using its legislative powers, then it can be classified as a pro-Hindu issue. However, current litigation in the Supreme Court just makes it another property dispute rather than a pro-Hindu issue.
Ban on proselytization by non-Hindus: A policy which disallows missionaries from converting the local population would fall under this category. Banning conversions for all religions does not make it pro-Hindu. Only a policy which bans conversion out of Hinduism while allowing Ghar Wapsi can be called pro-Hindu. Under the current Constitution, covert policies can be implemented to stop missionaries. For example, in tribal belts under the garb of protecting local culture, missionaries can be denied entry into the whole region while allowing Hindus to target Christian converts. This is not explicitly pro-Hindu but covertly achieves the same agenda.
Birth-control restrictions on Muslims: To maintain demographic superiority of Hindus, it is very important to reduce the current boom in Muslim population. Any policy which explicitly or implicitly reduces Muslim births while having no impact on Hindus can be called pro-Hindu.
Force minority institutes to implement reservations: Reservation benefits are restricted to Hindus in most cases, so if minority institutes are forced to educate SC/STs, it will increase opportunities for Hindus while reducing them for minorities. If a 50% quota can be implemented in minority institutes, it can be called a pro-Hindu policy as it will educate Hindu masses while minorities foot the bill. This is not a big tax given minority institutes will still get a chance to preserve their culture, but at a small cost of educating backward Hindus.
Throw out illegal Muslim immigrants from Bangladesh and give citizenship to minority Hindus from Bangladesh and Pakistan.
The above examples clearly show that many other similar policies can be designed with explicit benefit for Hindus. But it is essential for Hindus to push back on unnecessary tags awarded to policies which do not pass the pro-Hindu criterion. Policies that do not exclusively help Hindus need to be declassified and placed under secular or national policy headings. Implementation of pro-Hindu policies will only be feasible after Hindus dismantle the narrative and repeal anti-Hindu policies. But the first step is to stop classifying secular policies under the pro-Hindu basket. This brings us to the million-dollar question: is there any political party which can really claim to be pro-Hindu?
Indian National Congress is probably the most pathetic party in India and its voters the most shameless and self-respect lacking Hindus in the universe. Even Pakistanis stranded in India and their parties like AIMIM of the Owaisi brothers won’t come close to the treachery done by Congress against India and Hindus. At least, the Islamist brothers from Hyderabad are pretty honest about their opinions about India and Hindu society but Congress hides its rabid Hinduphobia and anti-national agenda behind the veneer of fake secularism.
When India got its independence in 1947, it had the same per capita income, poverty levels, literacy rate as that of South Korea, which got its independence in 1948. But today, South Korea is 20 times as rich as India with a poverty rate that should make every Indian who voted for congress and its socialism squirm in disgust. Congress wasted the economic potential of India under its pathetic socialist policies, which ensured that poor stayed poor forever without any way out of poverty, all under the pretence of preventing rich from exploiting them. By keeping poor poorer for almost 5 decades, Congress has built its legacy and wealth on the death and starvation of poor Indians. If Communist Mao had destroyed 50 million Chinese in cultural revolution, Indian National Congress have starved billions of Indians so far by denying their rightful opportunity at better life. It wasn’t done out of any concern or idealism either as the same congress party today also is the most corrupt wealthy party in India, with Italian waitress Sonia being the wealthiest Indian in India unofficially, even though she claims to have only a very limited wealth.
The injustices done to Hindus under the Indian National Congress is immeasurable. Indian National Congress is instrumental in destroying Hindu pride and the sense of identity among Hindus. Even now the pathetic worms in the congress party haven’t given up their ways to destroy Indians from within, by trying to destroy local traditions of Hindus, like Jallikattu or Shani Temple. The damage done by Congress party to Hindus is actually worse than the damage Hindus suffered under the Islamic and British barbarians. Congress being the cunning parasitic worm party it is, cleverly destroyed the Hindu pride, Hindu identity and self-respect under the name of secularism.
Congress party is so pathetic that it did not even think twice before collaborating with ISI and Pakistan to target Hindu politicians, just for political gains. They invented the term saffron terror for non-existent phenomenon, just to create an equal-equal with Islamic terror and framed innocent patriotic Hindus on false case of terrorism.
If Bharat Mata is our mother, then Congress actions of selling out Bharat Mata or her sons, just for staying in power and looting India, is no less pathetic than a vermin selling out his mother for profit and cash.
Other than the above mentioned problems, Congress has also undermined the efficiency of Indian armed forces by slandering them with allegations of coup, using their media prostitutes/presstitutes and demoralized them. There is no bigger sin than compromising national security and defence. By the time Congress left office, situation was so grim that Indian army reserves were down to just 20 days of ammo supplies in case of a war.
Such a self hating, anti-national and anti-Hindu party like Congress and its current clones like AAP, along with the corrupt ecosystem of parasites should be eliminated if the country is to have any meaningful future. Congress-Mukt Bharat is becoming a reality and it has been already eliminated and reduced to joke in states like Tamil Nadu, Bihar, Orissa, Bengal, Sikkim, Andhra Pradesh, UP etc. It is about time to get rid of Congress fully for a better future of India.
This is the first article in this series on explaining the problems with emergence of a real Hindu party. Read Part 2, Part 3 and Part 4.
So, why do you think Hindus don’t get a real Hindu party which can enforce their cultural agenda? Brief answer: the naivety of Hindus makes them think about nation first and religion later. Although they have only one homeland in the world, they still struggle to make the optimal choice. This all-encompassing attitude of Hindus allows other slackers to pursue their pointed agenda while taking for granted that stupid Hindus will take care of the economy and infrastructure anyway. No surprise that every time some freak raises the bogey of real Hindu issues, he is shot down by the many “Economics is Everything” naysayers whose numbers have rapidly swelled in the Hindu fold now. The usual copybook response then goes along the lines: “Don’t you think rural electrification is for Hindus as well? You are mistaken if you think a poor farmer cares about Ram temple.”
Just to fix ideas: Hindus need to learn and start playing the realpolitik game. It’s not that bad economy and bad roads don’t adversely affect Muslims, but that is never an election issue for them as they know someone else, i.e. Hindus, will make sure that roads are built, the economy is bolstered and the nation is protected by Hindu soldiers anyway. So making economy, infrastructure or security an election demand becomes redundant for them. Actually, no matter how hard BJP tries to sell its developmental agenda, Muslims never buy it. Once Hindus start playing realpolitik and caring for their own agenda more than caring about the universe, they too will start seeing a change in not just politicians but also Muslim voting patterns because, for the first time, the spoiled brats will have to take up the mantle of nation building given that Hindus would no longer consider it their sole responsibility.
The case about Hindu and Muslim responsibility is like that of a cuckoo laying eggs in a crow’s nest. The cuckoo is the Muslim here and the crow is the hard-working Hindu. It’s not that the cuckoo doesn’t care about its eggs, but it outsources its labour to the crow and takes time to pursue its own goals, while the crow is left with both its own and the cuckoo’s eggs to attend to and fails to pursue its own goals despite being the bigger bird. Similarly, Muslims have cleverly intermingled their interests with Hindus to make sure it becomes difficult for Hindus to separate the two, like the crow can’t differentiate between its own and the cuckoo’s eggs. Once the crow starts saying, “You know what — I feel like behaving irresponsibly for a change and I don’t give a shit about any eggs. Let all eggs die,” the cuckoo will have to take corrective measures if it has to ensure survival of its species and make alternate arrangements for its eggs henceforth.
It’s the same with Muslims. They have outsourced development, economy, infrastructure, social harmony, soldiering and martyrdom to Hindus, so that they can themselves pursue their narrow goals knowing very well that everything else is taken care of by the bania Hindus. This arrangement has worked great for them. But Muslims freeloading on civilized society is not restricted to India or even the 21st century. You can go to any Western country and Muslims are usually among the lowest income groups and use social security to make ends meet. Why wouldn’t they freeload since civilized society will not let them die when they demand breaks for namaz five times a day and get fired from work to go back and live like parasites on social security? But this is not a new phenomenon, as reported by British officer Ibbetson in 1881. This is what he had to say:
Reading the above summary, it seems as if Ibbetson wrote these paragraphs just yesterday. This common trait of free riding explains Muslim lethargy and poverty across the world, where they simply exploit the civilization-building efforts of Kafirs while at the same time pushing their societies to adopt Muslim norms such as halal products and burqa through democracy. In military terms it is called “grabbing the enemy by the belt”, as espoused by Giap against the Americans during the Vietnam War. Vietnam mixed its soldiers with Americans in close-quarter battles to prevent Americans from using air power because they knew that if American bombs fell, American soldiers would die too. In the end, Americans decided to sacrifice a few soldiers, which turned the tide in America’s favour.
Similarly, if Hindus decide that they want something — like Ram Mandir or Article 370 — they can get it. But today if you ask a random Hindu about it, he would say, “Let the courts decide, else there would be riots,” knowing very well that it is not just Hindus who would die or bear the losses. Yet Hindus unilaterally take a step back, despite the fact that in case of riots consequences are usually far worse for Muslims. This is how this ideological subversion works and has been working since the time of Gandhi. The mantle of maintaining social harmony is placed singularly on Hindu shoulders while Muslims free ride and the likes of Owaisi and Azam Khan go around threatening riots and stop the larger community from peacefully pursuing its right to build a temple for one of its most important civilizational heroes, that too in his birthplace. Now, no one is advocating violence here, but this is how realpolitik works. Politicians know this very well. Once Hindus overcome this self-enforced mental burden and say, “We don’t care and let it happen,” both Muslims and politicians will have to change their tune.
Similar was the case in Gujarat prior to 2002 when riots were taking place daily but Hindus were told not to retaliate for fear of escalation. Dead cows were being thrown into temples but Hindus were told not to retaliate because “there will be a riot”. Then there was an attack on Somnath temple but Hindus were told not to retaliate because “there will be a riot”. It took the burning down of 56 saints in Godhra when Hindus lost their patience and said, “Let it be.” After that day hardly anyone ever dared to use that phrase to scare Hindus into submission again. The same word which had been their strength became their weakness after that. Not to mention, there have hardly been any mentionable riots in Gujarat post-2002.
Again, without looking at it as an incitement to violence, one can clearly see that the more considerate you are, the more attrition you face. Hit the reset button once and things can progress differently. Think about it: if Mamata gives a monthly allowance to imams while poor Hindu priests go hungry, whose fault is it — Muslims, who know how to bend the system, or Hindus, who don’t know their priorities? So a reset is needed in the political sphere, but for that Hindus need to unite and realize the importance of their identity. Once all political parties realize that there is a certain red line which cannot be crossed without paying heavy political costs, no one will take Hindus for a ride. No one would dare coin terms like “Hindu terror” for a non-existent phenomenon while hounding you with Islamophobia, even though most terrorist activities are [sentence incomplete in archived text]. All these jumlas that “the economy will improve, have patience” are like giving a lollipop to infants and nothing else. If Hindus themselves are complacent and keep saying they are very happy with BJP’s performance, even though it has not moved an inch on the cultural Hindu agenda, and overtly express their commitment to vote for BJP in 2019, then what makes you think BJP won’t start taking Hindus for granted?
If you don’t like parasites eating your tax money through doles, stop paying taxes — what will then happen to the parasites? But Hindus won’t play that game and continue to pay taxes so that “roads could be built” while whining about socialism. So if BJP keeps going down the path it is going now, what will it show at the end of five years? “We prevented some hypothetical riots and built some roads, but please give us another chance in 2019 to build Ram Mandir, abolish Article 370, bring UCC and repeal RTE. We will definitely finish them next time.” Well, Congress has been making promises for the past 70 years as well and even Manmohan can run the economy, so what is the difference between BJP and Congress? Is it just Congress plus cow?
This is the first article in this series on explaining the problems with emergence of a real Hindu party. Read Part 2, Part 3 and Part 4.
How to draw maritime boundaries is as much a long standing legal battle on paper as it is in real water and has an interesting history. I’ll give you the gist of the current issues especially in the wake of a rising China and its growing list of maritime disputes.
As per international law, every nation can claim territorial water and an Exclusive Economic Zone. There is a legal provision that allows a country to have its EEZ extended by making a formal application to the international body, which in turn recognizes it as such.
In case of India, we have territorial waters plus a 200-mile EEZ and applied for an extended economic zone. We continue to treat that total area as our de facto zone of control, which the US disagrees with and deliberately runs warships through just to make a point.
Legally, the US has the right to challenge India in extended waters since an extended economic zone is not the same as territorial waters and it cannot be considered an intrusion or an act of war. But legality is not the only relevant benchmark because the current global order derives its legality from laws written by victors of the Second World War.
There are many nuances and technicalities within these guidelines, including submerged continental reefs and archipelago baselines. Because ocean beds are uneven and the dichotomy between land and sea is not always well defined, maritime borders are often disputed.
The same game is being played out in the South China Sea where China is treating the continental shelf as de facto land and then extending their argument from there to claim full sovereignty over disputed areas. Since claims over territorial waters extend themselves into Air Defence Identification Zone protocols, it impacts the control of airspace as well.
The US allowed a large overlapping claim to arise between China and Japan by encouraging Japan to redefine territorial claims over Senkaku Islands. The article argues that this provoked China to open another front in the South China Sea.
Essentially all territorial water disputes until now followed the theme of “this land belongs to us therefore the adjacent waters belong to us”. The paradigm shift that China has brought to this equation is: this water belongs to us, therefore the land belongs to us, therefore more water belongs to us.
Cutting long story short, ‘Freedom of Navigation’ is to capitalism what ‘Freedom of Religion’ is to Christianity. The former is meant to extend western capitalist hegemony and the latter is meant to extend Christian hegemony.
This ‘challenging’ business has got more to do with geopolitics than legality. The framework for these laws was laid when the US was a rising global power, and the US weakened and subverted international forums once it became the apex power. Now that the world is moving from a unipolar to a multipolar one, the US is again strengthening these laws to make it difficult for new powers to rise.
Consider the ranges and speeds of missiles these days: 200 miles is only a stone’s throw away. Yet, a warship parked just beyond this distance is technically considered to be in international waters, disregarding the fact that it can hit vital targets in seconds. This is gunboat diplomacy.
Maritime security, or security and geopolitics in general, has always been given step-motherly treatment by Indian politicians, despite the fact that the fate of our civilization hangs from it. No other civilization shuns their responsibilities like we do. In light of all the vultures who have an eye on India’s maritime interests, let’s Shun No Varuna, or as the Navy likes to say it: शन्नो वरुणः.
GoI under PM Modi cracked the whip on foreign funding of NGOs last year, which culminated in the orchestrated attack on GoI by local and foreign media through highlighting a non-existent intolerance debate in the country. Fake Church attack stories were planted to tarnish the image of the government. A large number of these NGOs with foreign funding are engaged in subversion activities in India and a significant part of this foreign money is channelled through organizations related to the Church. So fake Church attacks not only generated large donations for them worldwide, but probably also made GoI go softer on the conversion business of the Church. It raises the question whether Hindus can somehow manipulate the Church mafia for their own benefit.
The manipulation in this case means using Church money to fund conversion of Muslims into Christianity. To use this strategy one first needs to ask: why is it better to have Christians than Muslims in India? It is more than evident that Christians are usually much less of a nuisance than Muslims in any neighbourhood. Also, since such conversion will cut into the already present high Muslim population in India, it will divide the population among these two Abrahamics. This will make it slightly easier to handle them instead of just handling Muslims. What makes a few more Christians instead of Muslims even better is the fact that Christians have even lower fertility rates than Hindus and are more affected by the liberal memes of the West. So it would be easier to outbreed them than outbreed the Muslims in the long run. So, it can be established beyond doubt that having a few more Christians at the cost of a few fewer Muslims is a better deal any day.
Now comes the question: why is it beneficial for Hindus to ask or aid Christians to convert Muslims?
It is like killing one snake with another. Christians have money and want to harvest more souls, so if they can evangelize Muslims, it reduces their numbers which is better for India in the long run.
It takes the heat off Hindutva groups engaged in Ghar Wapsi. This trick can pit one set of Abrahamics against another without hurting the image of Hindus. International and local media, which lose no chance to paint Hindutva organizations as fascists over one Ghar Wapsi incident, cannot do anything if one minority group converts another.
If Muslims and Christians fight over it, then Hindus do not lose anything. If Muslims get too violent, they would further erode their image as the Religion of Piece.
Having outlined the benefits of such a strategy, the only remaining piece of this puzzle is how to implement it. Using one set of Abrahamics against the other is not an easy task, especially when they would always gang up against pagans, in this case Hindus. Look below at the flow of foreign funds to NGOs in Kerala. The northern districts are Muslim dominated while the southern districts are Hindu majority. Although all these funds are not related to conversion activity, they still give a rough hint that the prime target for conversion is southern districts like Pathanamthitta with large Hindu populations, as it has received significantly higher foreign funds.
But does this mean Hindus can do nothing and lose their brothers to Christians while the Muslim womb goes into overdrive? The fact is, if GoI is serious it can break this nexus and force the Church to only convert Muslims. How will that work?
GoI gives the Church the choice to convert Muslims or shut shop in India. Given they will still prefer to harvest some souls rather than none, they would choose to convert Muslims.
Future conversion licences will be based on the performance of these organizations in converting Muslims. If they are found to be engaged in activities of converting Hindus, their licence will be revoked under one pretext or another and their funds will be seized.
In return for the services of these missionaries, the state will provide them full protection during this activity, i.e. strict action against Muslims who harass the foot soldiers of the Church engaged in converting Muslims.
Given huge repercussions for not toeing the line of GoI, any Church would prefer to make do with whatever number of souls it can harvest. Also, it is cheaper to hound the Church using sleuths and use its funds rather than force the entire responsibility of Ghar Wapsi on Hindus.
Long-run strategy:
First use evangelization and Ghar Wapsi in low-density Muslim areas so that there are low chances of riots.
Once the above areas are clear of Muslims, then one can resettle Hindus and converted Christians in high-Muslim-density areas like West Bengal and Western UP.
The above two strategies can be reformed to make them more effective over time. In an ideal scenario, given that Islam and Christianity are majority religions in the world, a sensible GoI could have banned conversion out of Hinduism and forced a one-child policy on Muslims. But since we live in a non-ideal secular world, probably it is the best option to make friends with the lesser enemy in the short run and let them finish each other off.
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.
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!
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.
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.
It’s not uncommon to find agitated Hindu nationalists lamenting their government’s stance on all the conflicts that Israel finds itself in. Albeit, very little of this love is based on cold hard strategic thinking and most of it is based on emotional anecdotes. “Iseraal halped India when Kargil dood, read histry bro”, they say. So, let’s do just that.
We aren’t morally beholden to tow the Israeli line on any policy issue out of gratitude for weapons they sell to us, for which we pay the full price. We are a sovereign nation and do what’s best for us. Besides, Jews aren’t some otherworldly saints who have descended upon humanity to talk about marshmallows and bunnies. The Jews are no less hostile to Dharmics than other Abrahamics.
Before we even begin dismantling the security narrative built around Israel being best friend of India(actually Hindus), the bleeding heart Hindus will learn a lot by looking at the famous names of Jews who are bent upon destroying Hinduism from inside. Since they lie at the fountainhead of monotheism, it is no surprise that Jews fill the rank and files of breaking India forces and provide the intellectual armour against Hindu traditions and practices.The Jews believe that they are chosen people and share the same hatred for pagan Hindus like the latter monotheistic derivatives of Christianity and Islam.
Many Hindu nationalists become very attached to Israel for no reason at all and seem to defend Jews no matter what. They seem to have internalized the propaganda by the leading Jewish sympathisers in India like Subramanian Swamy and other US fanboys as if Jews are eternal friends of Hindus. But is there any evidence to suggest that Jews are friends of Hindus? Any empirical analysis around the subject shows no evidence for the same. In fact, if anything Jews have been as negative to Hindus and India as their Abrahamic cousins – Muslims and Christians. Israeli cafe in India said to only serve white customers
Many Hindus think that since Jews don’t evangelize like the other Abrahamics and because they have suffered under Christians and Muslims just like Hindus, they have an emotional attachment to Jews. This is stupid logic, since by the same logic, British and Mughals fought with each other and hence only a mad man can think that either of them were allies of Hindus. In fact, any unbiased look at evidence of Jewish behaviour against Hindus will show the same negative impact of Jews on Hindus just like their Abrahamic cousins. For instance, almost all of the Hinduphobic Indology, which lays the ideological foundation for most of the Breaking India forces have Jews at their heart. One just has to look at the venom against Hindus and Hinduism spread by Wendy Doninger, Christopher Minkowski, Yigal Bronner or the attempts by Andrey Truschke to white wash the atrocities of Aurangzeb as if it never happened. Imagine the outrage it will cause if a Hindu scholar of Jewish studies released a book saying Hitler never killed Jews and how he is misunderstood. But the point many Hindus miss here is that this is because of the basic polytheism of Hindus vs the monotheism of the Abrahamics, in which Jews lie at the core. Even the Israeli help for our country wasn’t really help but just mutual interest in containing the Islamic enemies which both have and for business reasons and not direct friendship. This is no different than Christian Byzantine empire helping the Islamic forces in Arabia to take out the pagan Persian empire. If not for the existential threat Israel faces from Muslims countries in its neighbourhood, it actually has no reason to befriend India and Hindus other than for business. So it is important for Hindus to drop this unusual and irrational and largely undeserved love they have for Jews and look at the situation from a proper geopolitical perspective and decide objectively the best course of action for Hindus and India.
Given this background, now lets try to understand Modi decided to not visit Israel. This is done with great forethought, not out of some Nehruvian idea of a hipster worldview. Modi was scheduled to visit Israel, making him the first Indian PM, but then suddenly India downgraded the level of diplomatic engagement from PM to MEA, now Sushma Swaraj is going. This change was a result of some hard thinking by India’s security cabinet. It is in our interest that Israel remain under some kind of existential threat from other nations, so that India can retain an elevated position of importance in the eyes of Israel. An Israel that is under no pressure has no obligation to play nice with India, and they might as well start blackmailing us with threats of selling weapons technology to Pakistan, like Russia and France does. The fact that Israel remains under siege impedes them from taking any measures that might alienate India. This status quo favours us.
Israel needs India because the constantly looming threat of India keeps Pakistan from forging any meaningful military alliance with Israel’s enemy, Turkey. It is this threat that makes Israel less likely to double cross us. If the threat from Turkey didn’t exist, Israel would be blackmailing us right now. It is in our interest that the Palestine conflict keeps boiling with no resolution in sight. We encourage both sides (Israel and OPEC) to indulge in a competitive bidding to stay in the good books of India since India is a big strategic buyer for both of them. We maintain an ambiguous stance on Palestine so that both Israel and OPEC keep offering us their respective strategic resources (weapons and oil) at competitive rates in exchange for our diplomatic support for their respective causes in the international forums. If the Palestine conflict is solved, then Israel has nothing to stop it from playing a wider global role and there is a fear that they might start playing the same game that the US plays with us vis-a-vis weapons sales to Pakistan.
Even our so called friend Russia threatened to sell weapons to Pakistan when the recent talks didn’t go as planned and our all weather friend Israel wouldn’t mind even one bit to carry out a false flag terrorist attack in India to ignite a war between India and Pakistan in the hope of selling weapons to India or to keep Pakistan army busy with India while Israel fights a war with Turkey.
That is what makes the situation volatile for us. There should be absolutely no doubt that when Israel decides to go to war with Turkey (or Iran), it will try to provoke a war between India and Pakistan to keep Pakistan engaged in a regional war with India and prevent Pakistan from entering a war to support Turkey (or to prevent India from helping Iran). Last time when Israel was attacked by Arab forces, Pakistani pilots were all over Israeli airspace and shooting them down.
An Israel under siege is good for India. Therefore it is in our interest to shrewdly keep the Palestine pot boiling by supporting both sides as and when it is expedient upon us.
Israeli presence in the Middle East even (especially) with the Palestine turmoil helps our overall security environment. The Palestine issue is a moral flashpoint for Sunni nations like Turkey. If the Palestine issue didn’t exist, Turkey and Israel would have no casus-belli to antagonize each other. If the looming existential threat of a large scale war with Israel didn’t exist, Turkey wouldn’t seek broader military ties with Pakistan and subsequently Israel wouldn’t share military knowhow with India to keep Pakistan tied down. This organic symbiotic relationship makes sure that Israel remains under our fold without having to bribe them or honeytrap them. If the Palestine issue is solved, we lose the favorable status quo and Israel might then start meddling in our affairs to make military sales. They played a devastating role during the LTTE period as well. We can’t guarantee that global security environment wouldn’t deteriorate to those incredible lows again. When that happens, it would be hard to rely exclusively on our economic relationship as a weapons buyer to fend off Israel without having our finger on the Palestine issue. The potential threat of India siding with Turkey on the Palestine issue would amply deter Israel if the security scene in our backyard worsens. For us to be able to exercise that option, the Palestine issue needs to be kept alive.
Let the conflict rage, it is the Muslims who are dying in disproportionate numbers anyway. Besides, what real costs do we incur by simply providing moral and diplomatic support? None. This is a cheap investment with very high returns for us. It would be stupid to give up the Palestinian cause for some cheap sense of right wing thrill.
Besides, Israel is no saint either. Israel itself has switched loyalties multiple times in the past few decades. Now many people know that Israel used to be good friends with Iran up until the 70’s. They even had a joint weapons development program called Project Flower. Guess what the objectives of the program were? To counter Indian nuclear program. Yes, you heard it right.
Israel took Irani oil, money, gave them old weapon and passed details to Iraq/US who later attacked Iran. Iran helps arm Palestine as a payback for Israel backstabbing them for nuclear project. Israel is no saint. It’s not our fight. One also needs to take a look at how Israel’s relations with their other allies have progressed after Israel’s objectives were served. France and Israel were the best of the friends. It is even rumoured (well known) that it was France which supplied nuclear technology and centrifuge technology to Israel in early 60’s and where does Israel-France relation stand today when Israel doesn’t need France any more? Incidentally Israel, France and Britain had made common cause during the Suez Crisis, which was rolled back by US military intervention against the alliance and Israel’s relation with all the involved parties is fraught with distrust and animosity today, including the US. India would face the same fate if we wear our hearts on our sleeve.
Israel today is close allies with Saudi Arabia, which as we all know isn’t exactly India’s best buddy. That has never deterred Israel from cultivating deep military and intelligence ties with the Saudi kingdom, without feeling guilty of offending India. But when India allies itself with Iran to look after its own interests, then it offends the Zionists?
Say what you may about Arab nations, one cannot deny the fact that India gets upwards of 50 Billion USD in remittances from our expats living there. Not to mention the safety and security of the expats themselves, all ~8 million of them, a confrontation with either the Arab states or Iran is not in India’s best interest and yet, Israel wouldn’t bat an eye lid to draw India into a conflict if it serves their interest. They won’t hesitate from tying up with Pakistan and use their soil to wage a covert war against Iran if their revenues from weapon sales to India take a nose dive. There is also the possibility of a greater Israel-Saudi-Pakistan alliance against Iran, which would isolate India and put all our interests at risk, so one needs to think it through before blindly supporting Israel’s position on Palestine simply to spite Indian Muslims in online debates. The diplomatic support India gives to the already dead Palestinian cause is simply flowery lip service and does not require India to commit any of its resources nor does it cost anything. The dividends that it yields in return, in terms of co-operation from Arab states and Iran alike are massive.
So all the bleeding heart Hindus who feel the compulsive obligation to speak up on behalf of Israel in discussions and rename their online profiles into Hindu Zionists should think t̶w̶i̶c̶e̶, or rather just once, before aligning themselves with the star of David. India needs to take strategic decisions in cold blood without any regard for misplaced emotions like “Hindu-Jew Bhai Bhai”.
