Tweet
Narendra Modi signals Hindu resurgence
Being anti-Modi now is a direct legacy of Gandhi’s anti-Hindu freedom struggle and anti-Hindu Nehruvian secularism. The high decibel political reaction prior to elections 2014 to Modi’s unstoppable ascent was a continuation of Gandhi’s response to first Tilak, Savarkar, Aurobindo and later Sardar Patel; and Nehru’s response to Savarkar, Patel and the RSS –
To label the anti-Hindu orientation of Indian polity as ‘secular versus communal’ is to obfuscate the truth. This is war between Hindu nationalists and all anti-Hindu political mercenaries including renegade Hindus in political parties, media and academe, the Abrahamic cults and their supporters. For Hindu nationalists Elections 2014 was a war for survival of Hindus and the Hindu homeland. It is not overstating a fact that every Hindu felt he had a stake in Elections 2014.
To state the obvious –
• No political party or politician can remain in electoral politics on an explicit anti-Hindu platform; but in the absence of any distinct ideology and no commitment to even minimal good governance, these need the anti-Hindu posture and the tactical and consolidated Abrahamic minority vote to remain a viable political entity.
• To garner the minority vote, anti-Hindu politicians pay jizya of politics of minority-ism under two broad categories:
• Give anti-Hindu politics a face – it was Tilak, Aurobindo and Savarkar at the turn of the twentieth century, it is the RSS and Modi now. Gandhi could publicly insult and humiliate Tilak, maliciously ignore Aurobindo and with criminal self-interest evict proclaimed Hindus KM Munshi and NB Khare from the INC and marginalize Patel in 1946 because he was the Mahatma. But for Digvijay Singh, Lalu Prasad Yadav, Mulayam Singh Yadav and other mercenaries who cannot risk being publicly seen as anti-Hindu, it costs nothing to be anti-RSS and anti-Modi.
• Practice naked politics of minorityism but give it the fig-leaf of constitutional secularism or even better, call it Gandhi’s vision of India and never mind if in action it is nothing less than feeding the anti-Hindu monster.
From the clairvoyant Arundhati Roy who declared with certainty that Modi would not become prime minister, to Nitish Kumar and Naveen Patnaik the reasons cited to hate Modi all go back to the fundamental reason why the British manufactured the INC in 1885, followed by the destructive years of Gandhi’s political leadership from 1915 to 1947.
It was Gandhi and the Indian National Congress (that Gandhi intentionally and successfully de-Hinduised), which gave away Hindu territory to the Muslim League (as plotted and executed by Imperial Britain) in 1947. A politically dispirited INC was disarmed, unmanned and weakened by the Mahatma over a period lasting three decades, an INC which had no self conscious political commitment to anything Hindu and could therefore not stop the Muslim League from vivisecting the Hindu nation to create another Dar-ul Islam. The country’s polity is burdened till today by Gandhi’s unrelenting political disempowerment of Hindus.
Not all the verbose annual reports on religious freedom, terrorism and human rights by the US State Department and the USCIRF and special sessions on the Gujarat riots which designated India as “country of interest” and Modi as “person of interest” has deterred India’s Hindus from uniting behind Modi. “Person of interest”, “country of interest” is Americanism for individuals and heads of government of target countries who were unwilling to serve American interests.
So why do they all fear and hate Modi so much?
While post-Godhra Gujarat riots of 2002 makes for designer fig-leaf, we must look elsewhere for the real reason to dislike Modi. Modi made no bones about the fact that he was a RSS pracharak; but unlike the standard RSS pracharak he chose the challenging arena of electoral politics to serve the Hindu nation; Modi chose to be the in-your-face tea-vendor turned RSS pracharak-turned-Chief Minister of Gujarat and is now the in-your-face RSS pracharak-turned Prime Minister.
Vajpayee and Advani who led the previous NDA government between 1997 and 2004 were at best notional Hindus and notional RSS swayamsevaks.
Just as motivated propaganda by renegade Hindus and the Muslim League projected Gandhi as the ideal Hindu leading an “accommodative” INC in contrast to a “fanatic” Jinnah leading the avowedly Islamic Muslim League, motivated politics of minority-ism exemplified by the three Yadavs – Sharad, Lalu and Mulayam – projects Vajpayee, in contrast to Narendra Modi, as the ideal Hindu who led an “accommodative” BJP.
Modi, until he is tamed and pacified by America to say otherwise or acts to the detriment of Hindu interests, will be looked upon by his admirers and adversaries alike, as an RSS pracharak in active politics.
The RSS is feared and disliked because the RSS makes no bones about India being a Hindu nation and the RSS being a Hindu nationalist organization–and therefore antithetical to Gandhi’s and Congress’ fantasies about the face and shape of post 1947 India. Gandhi rejected the notion that Ramrajya was a Hindu nation. Gandhi, in keeping with his bible-selling years in South Africa and his monotheist approach to Hinduis equated Ramrajya with the Muslim Khudai Raj and the Christian Kingdom of God. Modi’s enemies are clinging to Gandhi’s fantasies hoping that in time they will break Modi and the RSS like the British government broke the backbone of the Nationalist faction of the INC which split in Surat in December 1907 over the issue of who should be elected President.
From the Mahatma’s own mouth
Let no one commit the mistake of thinking that Ramrajya means a rule of the Hindus. My Rama is another name for Khuda or God. I want Khudai Raj which is the same thing as the Kingdom of God on earth. The rule of the first four caliphs was somewhat comparable to it. (Speech at a prayer meeting, Haimchar, February 26, 1947, CWMG Vol. 94, page 76 and Radha Rajan, Eclipse of the Hindu Nation: Gandhi and his Freedom Struggle Chapter 7, Unraveling the Mahatma, page 460)
Gandhi did not stop with his queer interpretation of Hindu scriptures and itihaasa; he diminished and belittled everything Hindu – Hindu temples, Hindu sanyasis, Hindu customs and traditions and critically during the 1940s decade, Hindu kings and princes, to implement the colonial agenda of seeking to find the Holy Grail of Hindu-Muslim unity. Gandhi was preoccupied with this illusory unity until 1947 when Gandhi lost nothing but the Hindu nation lost territory.
Thousands of people doubtless look upon Rama and Krishna as historical figures and literally believe that God came down in person on earth in the form of Rama the son of Dasaratha, and that by worshipping him one can attain salvation.
History, imagination and truth have got so inextricably mixed up, it is next to impossible to disentangle them. I have accepted all the names and forms attributed to God as symbols denoting one formless omnipotent Rama. (Who is Rama, New Delhi, May 26, 1946, CWMG Vol. 91, pp 44-45)
Thinking of the historical Rama of Valmiki or Tulsidas, one was liable to have many doubts as for instance why Rama banished Sita and so on. But when one thought of Ramanama in the abstract forgetting who Rama was and what he did, Rama at once became omnipresent and omnipotent God, above doubt and criticism. (CWMG, Vol. 89, pp 298-99)
Such was Gandhi’s standing among people inside and outside the INC that he could pass off drivel as high wisdom. In a letter to Jehangir Patel at Sevagram on August 8, 1946, Gandhi presented his own comical description of Ramanama thus –
Remember that Ramanama is the unfailing remedy for eradicating malaria. Having become a trustee of a nature-cure institution, you have got to appreciate this thing. And Ramanama is the same as Ahurmazda. (CWMG vol. 91, page 430)
Gandhi had an equally bizarre and un-Hindu interpretation of the Bhagwad Gita. His views on the Bhagwad Gita in 1919 came at a time when Tilak during his six years internment in the Mandalay prison penned his Srimad Bhagwad Gita Rahasya, a handbook on karmayoga. Tilak’s scholarly commentary on the Bhagwad Gita is also known as Karmayoga Sastra.
Gandhi returned to India in a hurry in 1915 because he had to occupy the position as thinker and leader of the INC – a position that Gokhale, aging and now quite ill, kept in readiness for him after the British had removed first Aurobindo, next Tilak and then Savarkar from public life.
To be continued…
- See more at: http://www.indiafacts.co.in/deconstructing-gandhi-origin-anti-hindu-polity/#sthash.sGZVwd1y.dpuf
Being anti-Modi now is a direct legacy of Gandhi’s anti-Hindu freedom struggle and anti-Hindu Nehruvian secularism. The high decibel political reaction prior to elections 2014 to Modi’s unstoppable ascent was a continuation of Gandhi’s response to first Tilak, Savarkar, Aurobindo and later Sardar Patel; and Nehru’s response to Savarkar, Patel and the RSS –
To label the anti-Hindu orientation of Indian polity as ‘secular versus communal’ is to obfuscate the truth. This is war between Hindu nationalists and all anti-Hindu political mercenaries including renegade Hindus in political parties, media and academe, the Abrahamic cults and their supporters. For Hindu nationalists Elections 2014 was a war for survival of Hindus and the Hindu homeland. It is not overstating a fact that every Hindu felt he had a stake in Elections 2014.
To state the obvious –
• No political party or politician can remain in electoral politics on an explicit anti-Hindu platform; but in the absence of any distinct ideology and no commitment to even minimal good governance, these need the anti-Hindu posture and the tactical and consolidated Abrahamic minority vote to remain a viable political entity.
• To garner the minority vote, anti-Hindu politicians pay jizya of politics of minority-ism under two broad categories:
• Give anti-Hindu politics a face – it was Tilak, Aurobindo and Savarkar at the turn of the twentieth century, it is the RSS and Modi now. Gandhi could publicly insult and humiliate Tilak, maliciously ignore Aurobindo and with criminal self-interest evict proclaimed Hindus KM Munshi and NB Khare from the INC and marginalize Patel in 1946 because he was the Mahatma. But for Digvijay Singh, Lalu Prasad Yadav, Mulayam Singh Yadav and other mercenaries who cannot risk being publicly seen as anti-Hindu, it costs nothing to be anti-RSS and anti-Modi.
• Practice naked politics of minorityism but give it the fig-leaf of constitutional secularism or even better, call it Gandhi’s vision of India and never mind if in action it is nothing less than feeding the anti-Hindu monster.
From the clairvoyant Arundhati Roy who declared with certainty that Modi would not become prime minister, to Nitish Kumar and Naveen Patnaik the reasons cited to hate Modi all go back to the fundamental reason why the British manufactured the INC in 1885, followed by the destructive years of Gandhi’s political leadership from 1915 to 1947.
It was Gandhi and the Indian National Congress (that Gandhi intentionally and successfully de-Hinduised), which gave away Hindu territory to the Muslim League (as plotted and executed by Imperial Britain) in 1947. A politically dispirited INC was disarmed, unmanned and weakened by the Mahatma over a period lasting three decades, an INC which had no self conscious political commitment to anything Hindu and could therefore not stop the Muslim League from vivisecting the Hindu nation to create another Dar-ul Islam. The country’s polity is burdened till today by Gandhi’s unrelenting political disempowerment of Hindus.
Not all the verbose annual reports on religious freedom, terrorism and human rights by the US State Department and the USCIRF and special sessions on the Gujarat riots which designated India as “country of interest” and Modi as “person of interest” has deterred India’s Hindus from uniting behind Modi. “Person of interest”, “country of interest” is Americanism for individuals and heads of government of target countries who were unwilling to serve American interests.
So why do they all fear and hate Modi so much?
While post-Godhra Gujarat riots of 2002 makes for designer fig-leaf, we must look elsewhere for the real reason to dislike Modi. Modi made no bones about the fact that he was a RSS pracharak; but unlike the standard RSS pracharak he chose the challenging arena of electoral politics to serve the Hindu nation; Modi chose to be the in-your-face tea-vendor turned RSS pracharak-turned-Chief Minister of Gujarat and is now the in-your-face RSS pracharak-turned Prime Minister.
Vajpayee and Advani who led the previous NDA government between 1997 and 2004 were at best notional Hindus and notional RSS swayamsevaks.
Just as motivated propaganda by renegade Hindus and the Muslim League projected Gandhi as the ideal Hindu leading an “accommodative” INC in contrast to a “fanatic” Jinnah leading the avowedly Islamic Muslim League, motivated politics of minority-ism exemplified by the three Yadavs – Sharad, Lalu and Mulayam – projects Vajpayee, in contrast to Narendra Modi, as the ideal Hindu who led an “accommodative” BJP.
Modi, until he is tamed and pacified by America to say otherwise or acts to the detriment of Hindu interests, will be looked upon by his admirers and adversaries alike, as an RSS pracharak in active politics.
The RSS is feared and disliked because the RSS makes no bones about India being a Hindu nation and the RSS being a Hindu nationalist organization–and therefore antithetical to Gandhi’s and Congress’ fantasies about the face and shape of post 1947 India. Gandhi rejected the notion that Ramrajya was a Hindu nation. Gandhi, in keeping with his bible-selling years in South Africa and his monotheist approach to Hinduis equated Ramrajya with the Muslim Khudai Raj and the Christian Kingdom of God. Modi’s enemies are clinging to Gandhi’s fantasies hoping that in time they will break Modi and the RSS like the British government broke the backbone of the Nationalist faction of the INC which split in Surat in December 1907 over the issue of who should be elected President.
From the Mahatma’s own mouth
Let no one commit the mistake of thinking that Ramrajya means a rule of the Hindus. My Rama is another name for Khuda or God. I want Khudai Raj which is the same thing as the Kingdom of God on earth. The rule of the first four caliphs was somewhat comparable to it. (Speech at a prayer meeting, Haimchar, February 26, 1947, CWMG Vol. 94, page 76 and Radha Rajan, Eclipse of the Hindu Nation: Gandhi and his Freedom Struggle Chapter 7, Unraveling the Mahatma, page 460)
Gandhi did not stop with his queer interpretation of Hindu scriptures and itihaasa; he diminished and belittled everything Hindu – Hindu temples, Hindu sanyasis, Hindu customs and traditions and critically during the 1940s decade, Hindu kings and princes, to implement the colonial agenda of seeking to find the Holy Grail of Hindu-Muslim unity. Gandhi was preoccupied with this illusory unity until 1947 when Gandhi lost nothing but the Hindu nation lost territory.
Thousands of people doubtless look upon Rama and Krishna as historical figures and literally believe that God came down in person on earth in the form of Rama the son of Dasaratha, and that by worshipping him one can attain salvation.
History, imagination and truth have got so inextricably mixed up, it is next to impossible to disentangle them. I have accepted all the names and forms attributed to God as symbols denoting one formless omnipotent Rama. (Who is Rama, New Delhi, May 26, 1946, CWMG Vol. 91, pp 44-45)
Thinking of the historical Rama of Valmiki or Tulsidas, one was liable to have many doubts as for instance why Rama banished Sita and so on. But when one thought of Ramanama in the abstract forgetting who Rama was and what he did, Rama at once became omnipresent and omnipotent God, above doubt and criticism. (CWMG, Vol. 89, pp 298-99)
Such was Gandhi’s standing among people inside and outside the INC that he could pass off drivel as high wisdom. In a letter to Jehangir Patel at Sevagram on August 8, 1946, Gandhi presented his own comical description of Ramanama thus –
Remember that Ramanama is the unfailing remedy for eradicating malaria. Having become a trustee of a nature-cure institution, you have got to appreciate this thing. And Ramanama is the same as Ahurmazda. (CWMG vol. 91, page 430)
Gandhi had an equally bizarre and un-Hindu interpretation of the Bhagwad Gita. His views on the Bhagwad Gita in 1919 came at a time when Tilak during his six years internment in the Mandalay prison penned his Srimad Bhagwad Gita Rahasya, a handbook on karmayoga. Tilak’s scholarly commentary on the Bhagwad Gita is also known as Karmayoga Sastra.
Gandhi returned to India in a hurry in 1915 because he had to occupy the position as thinker and leader of the INC – a position that Gokhale, aging and now quite ill, kept in readiness for him after the British had removed first Aurobindo, next Tilak and then Savarkar from public life.
To be continued…
- See more at: http://www.indiafacts.co.in/deconstructing-gandhi-origin-anti-hindu-polity/#sthash.sGZVwd1y.dpuf