Category Archives: Threats

Strength and Awareness are the only deterrents – Lessons from Pulwama

Arnold Toynbee writes ‘ What is Pakistan ? it was the first successful step in this 20th century to realize their ( Muslims) 1200 year old dream of complete subjugation of this country.’ 

Inspite of all its internal issues, Pakistan continues to harbour the dream of defeating Bharat & the Hindus. The video of the terrorist who was involved in the suicide attack in Pulwama has been shared extensively over whatsapp. While it is clear that he was the mimic & the voice was someone else’s, the words are important. He wages war on Hindustan the home of whom he calls as Mushriks ( polytheists )  & gaumootra drinking persons which is obviously the Hindus. He also accuses the Muslims who have either befriended the Hindus or are not practising Islam rigorously.

As expected, many TV channels ran debates on the dastardly act of terror. While there were many baying for revenge, there were some saying that talks are the solution and so on….

In the midst of one such discussion, one person who claimed to be a Kargil war veteran said that we must investigate why the local-bred person became a fidayeen. He spoke about politics etc but strangely did not fix the problem on indoctrination. Jehad is a world-wide phenomena but the apologists brush away the core issues of indoctrination of Ayats from the Qu’ raan stating there are bad people and good people and terror has no religion etc… . When it was happening in Bharat, the world ignored . After 9/11, US woke up and now Europe too is awakening to this grave danger.

 

The sentiment in the entire nation is baying for revenge & the Prime Minister, Sri Narendra Modi  has given an assurance with our support, the strongest action will be taken and that he has given the forces a free hand to do so. Lets hope & pray the government lives up to its promise.

But an important Question is what the common person must do ?

A few To Do’s

  1. Eternal Vigilance is the price of freedom. Awareness is a common responsibility. Awareness about what is being taught in the so-called schools of religion of peace
  2. Question the apologists. There are many who would want to brush away any discussion regarding what causes radicalisation – The points of indoctrination etc. Do Not allow it be brushed away.
  3. Have open discussions on issues concerning the entire nation with friends irrespective of religious affiliations.  After all the national security is paramount and everyone is a stakeholder in it.
  4. Educate family & extended family members who have for long not been exposed to the perils and thoughts of these ideologies camouflaged in the guise of religion.
  5. Read some important books on these subjects – Quranic concept of War, World of Fatwas, Calcutta Quran Petition, Understanding Islam through Hadis, Jehad or the Doctrine of war.
  6. Some people are bound to say that ” My friends are not like that”. ofcourse they are not ! But, they don’t matter because the mobs or fidayeens who attack are not governed by your friend But believe what the version of the mullah / moulvi. Therefore, believe what the so-called “religious teacher” is saying, because that is what matters.
  7. Support the armed forces ( including paramilitary ) by whatever means possible.
  8. Devote a few hours daily to connect to other members in the society esp youth and sensitise them on aspects of national security.
  9. Get into small groups in locality & have Raksha samitis.

…And Next year lets pray that we as a nation still remember 14th February for the sacrifice of these Veer Jawans and not for some fictitious saint who has been marketed by the consumer goods companies !!

Ofcourse the State is there to protect us but a Strong society is a bigger deterrent !

  • Ayush Nadimpalli

An excerpt from the Quraanic Concept of War by Brig S.K. Mallik of Pakistan 

” Terror is not a means of imposing decision upon the enemy; it is the decision we
wish to impose . . . .” Malik’s divine principal of Islamic warfare may be restated as
“strike terror; never feel terror.” The ultimate objective of this form of warfare “revolves
around the human heart, [the enemies] soul, spirit, and Faith.”56 Terror “can be instilled
only if the opponent’s Faith is destroyed . . . . It is essential in the ultimate analysis, to dislocate [the enemies] Faith.” Those who are firm in their religious conviction are immune
to terror, “a weak Faith offers inroads to terror.” Therefore, as part of preparations for jihad, actions will be oriented on weakening the non-Islamic’s “Faith,” while strengthening the Islamic’s. What that weakening or “dislocation” entails in practice remains
ambiguous. Malik concludes, “Psychological dislocation is temporary; spiritual dislocation is permanent.” The soul of man can only be touched by terror.”

It was Nehru Who Ordered to Celebrate his Birthday as Children’s Day!

Why do we celebrate Nehru Jayanti as Children’s Day? We have a ready-made answer with a punch quote of Nehru already on hands: Because Nehru was known for his love for children and was fondly called Chacha Nehru! And Nehru once said, “The children of today will make the India of tomorrow. The way we bring them up will determine the future of the country”. Here goes the narrative which has been established in the public domain over the years. According to the popular belief, after the death of Jawaharlal Nehru in 1964, it was unanimously decided to celebrate his birthday as Children’s Day in India.
But the reality is something else. It is a widely held misconception that November 14 is celebrated as Children’s Day after the death of Nehru. Reports and documents suggest that Nehru’s birthday was celebrated as Children’s day in 1955! Who did issue order to celebrate Nehru’s birthday as children’s day? Indeed, it was declared by the then Prime Minister of India, none other than Chacha Nehru! Interestingly, it had nothing to do with children or Chachaji’s eternal love and affections for India’s young buds. It was merely a public relations exercise, organised to please his Soviet Union masters Comrades Bulganin and Khrushchev who embarked on an India visit during that time.
Organiser Weekly, dated November 21, 1955, came out with a stinging editorial, penned by the then editor and stalwart journalist KR Malkani, targeting Jawaharlal Nehru for misusing the entire educational machinery to build up his dictatorship. Comparing Nehru’s humbug with that of Adolf Hitler, the editorial states, “Preparations to celebrate Pt. Nehru’s birthday and the Russian leaders’ arrival have set us thinking. It has been said of Hitler that he built up his dictatorship on the devotion of “Hitler Youth” organisation. It is well known that he assumed dictatorial powers without much amending the Weimer Constitution, that most perfect of democratic instruments. We must confess that the above preparations remind us of the “Hitler Jugend “, Organiser hit out at Nehru.
“For three weeks now, the entire educational machinery in the capital has been put out of gear. Since a number of students from every class in almost all the schools has been out rehearsing and re-rehearsing their allotted role for couple of hours every day, tuition has almost ground to a halt,” the editorial said.
The editorial condemns the repeated child rights violation occurred in the name of Children’s Day celebration as truckload of Delhi students, both boys and girls, had been daily transported to Kutub Minar ground for lessons in drilling, smiling, garlanding, clapping and shouting slogans!
“The official explanation is that they are observing Children’s Day. Wasting children’s education for three weeks is a rather wonderful way of celebrating Children’s Day. Nor is it clear why Pt. Nehru’s birthday should have been particularly selected for observation as ‘Children’s Day’, Shri Malkani wonders! “If any living dignitary’s birthday has to be celebrated on a national scale, the only right and indeed obvious, choice would be that of Rashtrapati’s,” he says.
The visionary journalist raised his concerns, asking whether the annual birthday celebration of Nehru continues into perpetuity, that later turned out to be true. “Also, is it the idea that ‘Nehru Jayanti” should be observed as Children’s Day forever hereafter? Or the Children’s Day chance with every incoming Premier’s birthday?,” he asks.
Interestingly, the editorial puts forth another suggestion that the right day for Children’s Day would be Krishna Janmashtami that birthday of the great child of all times-Sri Bala Krishna. Apart from Organiser, On November 14, 1956, The Times of India reported the Children’s Day: “Nearly 100,000 children assembled at the National Stadium today to participate in a Children’s Day rally, which coincided with the Prime Minister’s 67th birthday celebrations.” This is a new variant of the invisible colonialism which Nehru warned against, in his ‘Discovery of India’. It is high time to review and reexamine the readymade answers cooked up by so-called Nehruvians, for our frequently asked questions including, ‘why do we celebrate Nehru Jayanti as Children’s Day?’

Owaisi Party MLA Waris Pathan forced to apologize for Hailing Lord Ganesha

In this video, Waris Pathan says, ” a few days back, few words rolled out of my of tongue for which I have asked pardon from Allah ! …and what are these words,”  Ganapati Bappa Moriya”.

Asaduddin Owaisi’s All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) has gone all guns out against its party MLA Waris Pathan for chanting ‘Ganapati Bappa’ at a mandal in Mumbai. Waris Pathan represents Byculla assembly constituency from Mumbai.

He keeps saying again and again that I am a human being and seek pardon from Allah. He asks for “dua” so that he may get forgiveness. The MLA would not have asked forgiveness if he wasnt sure that it would impact his votebank. Doesn’t it have a wider message than the point that radicals have pressurised him ?

 

Refugees in their own country -Mizo Reangs in Tripura

Over 60Bru 100 Mizo #Reang janajati (tribal) families , estimated to be 50000+ are living in relief camps at Tripura-Mizo border since 1997. They are known as the Bru community.

 

In the video below, they share their heart-wrenching saga of how their homes were set on fire, women raped, hounded out of Mizoram for resisting conversion and being #Hindu. Today, they have no identity cards, getting birth certificate is a challenge. Safety of the girls is a challenge and they are married off in teens..

Bru 2

They need a life of #Swabhimaana instead of only depending on grants and doles, else entire generations would be lost. #VanavasiKalyanAshram , ISKCON and a few other organisations are doing their bit but it needs a concerted effort by the Mizoram govt and Central govt to work out a permanent solution to this. #HinduHumanRights .

In this video interaction, some of them explain the circumstances in which they had to leave their land and their current plight.

 

Cultural Studies – The Academic Discipline of Anti-India Politics

  • By Prasanna Deshpande

The foundation of the academic discipline called ‘Cultural Studies’ is perhaps the most long reaching and futuristic intellectual investment of the Western Academics. Under the garb of an ultra-modern, empirical, realistic academic theories of Humanities, this discipline attempts to offer a subversive, anti-establishment, anarchist, rebellious, Marxist and communist philosophy to the young aspirants of higher education system in India.

This subject called ‘Cultural Studies’ is an engaged academic discipline which follows the legacy of the radical leftist theories and the metamorphosed versions of Marxist cannon wrapped in a culturally adaptive and workable ideological modules of communism as created by the NEW LEFT thinkers like Stuart Hall, Richard Hoggart, E.P.Thompson, Raymond Williams and few other founders of the Birmingham Centre of Cultural Studies in England. This discipline has been studied and ‘practised’ all over India through following universities, most being Central Universities and research Centres or Post-Graduate Departments of Social Sciences, Anthropology, Sociology, History, Economics, Political Science, International Relations, Education Science, Humanities, Philosophy,Literary Studies, Women’s Studies, Social Change Studies , all IIT centres with Humanities Departments and so on. These centres are:

  • Department of English and cultural studies Punjab university Chandigarh.
  • Kerala Kalamandalam Deemed University for art and Culture, Thrissur, Kerala
  • Jawharlal Nehru University
  • Delhi University
  • Jadhopur University.
  • Aligarh Muslim University

The discipline works towards the motto: “Cultural Studies does not study culture, it makes one.” This pithy sentence sums up the project of cultural studies. That is, it resists the existing culture of the nation like India, subverts it, questions it, challenges the norms and deconstructs its existing discourse and establishes the ‘alternative’ of what is commonly believed on the basis of faith or tradition or what is even commonly known as history of the people or a nation. The critical writings of thinkers, researchers, theorists, scholars and professors of Cultural Studies in universities across the world (list given at the end of this paper) have been prescribed in the syllabi, either in the form of books or ‘critical essays’. Although Cultural Studies is known to be an extremely interdisciplinary academic activity, it is still grounded on some of its fundamental preamble. This fundamental commitment is nothing but the same old idea of locating an intellectual and political space for the communist ideology. The model of resistance and subversion is applied to all the ‘academic engagement’ of Cultural Studies. Be it philosophy or medical science,  music or film studies and even technology to ethics, Cultural Studies applies its model of offering an ‘alternative discourse’ to almost all the established principles of a discipline. It basically reveals the power structure of the established knowledge of a discipline and resists the ‘deterministic’ approach of ‘knowledge production’. It holds a view that all eternal, timeless values of a culture are of the ‘established’ kind which could be contested only by ‘contemporary’ modes of culture as the ‘contemporary’ modes are mostly the ‘deviant’ forms of a culture. They exploit the rebellious minds of youth by pushing them further to resist against the established mores of a culture. Cultural Hegemony can be discarded only by overemphasizing the distinctiveness of these ‘sub-cultures’ or ‘youth cultures’. Frederic Jameson, the American thinker of the same mode says, “One man’s idea of nation is another man’s hell.”             This is a camouflaged attempt of the sympathizers of communism and such divisive and anti-national tendencies of academicians to offer a more ‘customized’, culture specific modifications of Marxist, Communist political ideologies through academics. The aim of cultural studies is to destroy the indigenous culture of Bharat by creating a totally negative atmosphere in all the walks of life.

Stuart Hall, one of the founders of Cultural Studies advises students of Cultural Studies across the world that “they should not aim only at gaining ‘theoretical fluency’ in this subject. They must make an attempt to ‘practise’ what they learn and apply it to life. They must always engage themselves with what is ‘contemporary’, since the contemporary is devoid of the fundamental or eternal value system of a culture. These students should engage themselves with a process of offering derisive and subversive forms of ‘resistance’ to dominant mode of a mainstream culture.” For doing this, Cultural Studies forms a presupposition that the culture of the majority or the mainstream culture is ‘produced’ by the dominant class and is imposed on the weaker classes of the society. Hence “these identities should remain in a permanent ‘confronting’ position in its relation with its counterpart,” is the essence of the social studies of this discipline.

Any contemporary mode of culture is manifested through the youth. This manifestation is usually somewhat deviant from the primordial, eternal, timeless values of culture. So, the followers of established cultural norms would perceive this contemporary modes as somewhat ‘valueless’ or ‘casual’. This difference in the perception and execution of culture by two different generations is exploited by cultural studies as ‘suppressive established, socially controlling determinism’ of the older generations. This difference is manipulated into ‘subversion’ of cultural norms and a strategy of creating ‘alternative’ culture.

It is also important to know why this discipline is named as ‘Cultural Studies’. Knowing the academic engagement of cultural studies it is easy to understand that it mainly works on the ‘social’ aspect of everything, practically everything. For example, Cultural Studies undertakes the task of ‘socializing’ science. But it understands single logic of the ‘social’, and that logic is the denationalizing, culturally disintegrating logic of Marxist, communist’s view of the world. Hence the only ‘alternative’ that it could offer is that of the same ‘socialist revolution’. So, its primary concerns are social, with a focus on ‘power of knowledge’ and ‘knowledge of power’. In short, it aims at the incorporation of the social principle of everything and anything by exposing the power structure in order to resist and subvert it and establish the authority of the ‘communist’ point of view in the processes of nation as well as that of the state. The question still remains unanswered that why is it called ‘Cultural’, then? And also that if the world already has innumerable disciplines that study the ‘social’ why was this discipline founded? The search of answer to this may require us to understand Cultural Studies’ view of the traditional disciplines of social sciences or studies. Cultural Studies’ founding fathers maintained a stance that these traditional disciplines of Economics, Sociology, History, Political Science, Anthropology, and Philosophy maintained and projected themselves as ‘objective’ in the production of knowledge. Cultural Studies looks at the ‘objectivity of knowledge’ as a myth. According to Stuart Hall, these traditional social studies and sciences failed at many levels. They could neither ensure change nor reformation. They were highly dominated by the Western academics and hence the ‘discourse’ largely became ‘unrecognizable, unidentifiable, alien and strange’ to the non-western world. Hence these disciplines largely remained restricted to their academic and intellectual consumption. The insistence on ‘objectivity’ of this knowledge also always maintained the supremacy of the western logic through its projection of universality. Hence, these disciplines became infertile as far as the ‘leftist’ goals were concerned. Moreover, the Western academics, through these disciplines maintained the superiority of ‘an intellectual’ which largely widened the gap between actual, social realization and execution of the theories they brought out and hence people from different countries like those from India, in a majority, could never relate themselves to the ‘academic theorization’ of social politics or social change which was promised by these traditional sociological disciplines. Their ‘universality’ and ‘global’ identity largely became a hurdle in the process of absorption of diverse cultures across the world. This insistence on ‘theoretical accuracy’ narrowed the scope of actualization of these theories or of the ‘knowledge’ produced by these disciplines. Hence, a new alternative, unconventional, subversive, ‘anti-discipline’ became an intense need in the perception of these founding fathers of the Cultural Studies. Stuart Hall envisioned this discipline to be ‘subjective’ in its rationale. It is this ‘subjectivity’ of Cultural Studies which provides it a scope to customize ‘knowledge’ under its rubrics. Since the traditional ‘sociological’ disciplines and social sciences were ‘objective’ and since they failed in their pursuits, or they maintained a rational distance from Communism and Marxism, the name ‘Cultural Studies’ would seem as an ‘alternative’ to the unproductive apolitical disciplines and would adapt ‘political subjectivity’ instead of ‘academic objectivity’. So, ‘Cultural’ sounds more subjective and recognizable and identifiable than ‘social’ and also that it is concerned with the everyday life of the people(s) of the world. Stuart Hall has openly acknowledged in his essay, “ Cultural Studies and its Theoretical Legacies”, that ‘Cultural Studies is a political discipline and it does cultural politics’. That is why the discipline is called “Cultural Studies”, which does not engage itself with the study of cultures as they are or as they have been knowing by preserving the most desired distinctiveness of them but ‘Cultural’ because it establishes a ‘new, alternative, subversive culture’ of its own ideologies and perceptions.

It is this ‘subjectivity’ which equips this discipline with an ability to resist, subvert, distort and deter the traditional, eternal, timeless values of the Hindu society. The process is simple. They simply apply the Cultural Studies or NEW LEFT ‘models’ of ideas to the ‘reality’ of Indian societal norms, beliefs, faiths and modes and manners and try to deflate and destroy the popular views of men and their work.

For example, the popular image of the great ShivajiMaharaj as a Hindu King and a saviour of Hindu people against the tyranny of a Muslim ruler is questioned, resisted, refuted by applying the ‘deconstructive’ practice of ‘reading against the grain’ and a new, alternative ‘knowledge’ of ShivajiMaharaj is being established for the last 20 years. (This politics of ideology over ShivajiMaharaj coincides with the introduction of Cultural Studies in India). So, the ‘new knowledge’ about Shivaji (They drop ‘Maharaj’) would require you to understand him as a secular, socialist leader who was utterly sympathetic to the ‘minorities’ and the ‘downtrodden’ (which is not shown by the traditional knowledge-makers). This ‘new knowledge’ would take a radically critical stand (for the sake of it because resistance is the ‘norm’ under Cultural Studies) about the existing, traditional history and go to the extent of saying that the “popular image of Shivaji as a Hindu icon was manufactured’ by the upper caste Brahmin historians who had wanted their own dignified position in the caste structure to be intact. Hence, they ‘manipulated’ facts about Shivaji and made him a saviour of ‘the cow, the Brahmin and the Dharma’. If Shivaji is long understood as a Hindu icon, Dharma will remain as supreme value and if Dharma lasts, upper castes will continue being privileged forever.” There have been attempts also to co-opt this ‘knowledge’ by the film industry and entertainment and media circuits. A similar logic of Cultural Studies is extended to the ‘alternative’ readings of Swami Vivekananda. This methodology reads the literature of Swami Vivekananda with a purpose in mind. This purpose is commonly to locate the loose strings of logic in a text and to exploit the possibility of multiple interpretations. This multiplicity results into a substitution of discourse. This is what is called ‘reading against the grain.’ This substitution is actually a political strategy of reading the text against what is primarily conveyed by it and holding the alternative meaning as its ‘deconstructive meaning’. For example, there are certain statements in the writings of Vivekananda in which he has written against the excess of rituals by Hindus, how the excessive ritualistic traditions isolate a human from the social cause, the poor and the downtrodden and so on. Such ideas in Swamiji’s writings are exploited to show the ‘socialist’ discourse in Vivekananda’s writings and to foreground and focus this ‘alternative meaning’ of Vivekananda’s writings. This is a process by which Cultural Studies attempts not to mobilize its followers on motivation sought by mentioning the names of the Western thinkers but it mobilizes them by identifying the local, culture-specific icons of nationalism and faith with an ‘alternative’ readings and understanding so that the masses would be prepared to receive this ‘new knowledge’ of the ‘known ideals’.

This relationship of the Marxist, leftist ideologies and academics has got so firmly rooted now that it will not be a surprise if the word ‘leftist’ would mean ‘academic’ in coming years (which has almost taken place even in the current times). The sheer loss due to this stronghold of ‘leftist’ academics is that the fine brains of the nation are being diverted to a divisive and socially harmful activism (of which the JNU recently provided an example). Will it not be a loss of the nation like Bharat that the talent of hundreds of thousands of promising young boys and girls of our country has been misdirected and invested into an absolutely unproductive social activism which neither ensures change nor education? Is it not detrimental to the fabric of life in Bharat to allow such dubious ideologies to spoil the career of innumerable fine youth of the nation for the realization of some preposterous idealism of ‘revolution freaks”? If we must avoid this, which we must, some fundamental reforms need to be done in the ‘social studies’ discipline. Otherwise, the college youth, whose prowess could be our strength as a nation, if not properly groomed up in its ‘ideological orientation’, may soon become our weakness. This is not just to play a victim but if we fail to address this now, even our families will not possess the strength enough to rectify this social malady.

Prasanna A. Deshpande, Assistant Professor, Department of English, Fergusson College, Pune.