03-04-2007, 09:42 AM
Is it nation or decimation of nation?
V SUNDARAM
Islam-embracing, Christianity-coveting and Hindu-hating parliamentarian of convoluted fame, Sitaram Yechury, in a learned article has recently declared: 'Accordingly Golwalkar proceeds to assert that we means 'Hindus' and, hence, 'Swaraj' means 'Hindu Raj' or 'Hindu Rashtra.' Taking recourse to mythology instead of history, theology instead of philosophy, Golwalkar 'established' that the Hindus were always, and continue to remain, a nation. He proceeds to assert the intolerant, theocratic content of such a Hindu nation. The conclusion is unquestionably forced upon us that in Hindustan exists and must need exist the ancient Hindu nation and naught else but the Hindu nation. All those not belonging to the national Hindu race, religion, culture and language naturally fall out of the pale of our real 'National' life'. In the 60th year of our independence, the effort to consolidate the modern Indian republic based on the foundations of secular democracy, federalism, social justice and economic self reliance requires a democratic ostracisation of such pernicious political projects.'
To the anti-Hindu Communists like Sitaram Yechury, India may appear to be a land inhabited only by the descendants of Mohammed of Ghazni (971-1030 A.D.) or Mohammed of Ghori (1162-1206 AD) or St Francis Xavier (1502-1552 AD) alone. For him India means only 'Islamic India' and 'Christian India' and nothing else. For the Communists of India with their superincumbent international egotism, and vain - glorious pretensions, perhaps the history of India starts only with the date of birth of Mohammed of Ghazni in 971 AD. For communists in general and Sitaram Yechury in particular it will make greater sense to argue that India has greater cultural or spiritual or metaphysical connections with Stalin of Russia or Mao Tse Tung of China and more particularly his beloved concubines graphically described with Communist clarity if not conviction by his own personal Medical Doctor for more than 30 years.
Countries are very much like individuals, subject to not dissimular pressures, internal and external, influenced by environment, events, traditions and training. The past 60 years after the independence of India can no more be isolated or divorced from the context of 5 millenniums of eternal India's history and culture than an individual's life and character be divorced from the lives of his forebears, his own background and upbringing.
Ernest Renan (1823 - 1892)
A nation is not a notion
Lenin (1870 - 1924)
A notion is not a nation
Viewed in this non-Communist light, the history of India is predominantly and inevitably the history of Hinduism, for out of a total population of nearly thousand and six million, well over 80 % are Hindus. Although Hinduism as we know it today emerged long before 2500 BC, yet some historians have adduced evidence to establish its origin in the Indus Valley Civilization of Mohenjo-daro, which goes back to around 3000 BC. According to Sir John Marshall, who supervised the excavations in the Indus Valley, enough evidence appears in the fragments recovered 'to demonstrate that this religion of the Indian people was the lineal progenitor of Hinduism.' This would make Hinduism almost coincidental with the beginnings of Indian civilization.
A very great journalist and one who was in no way less non-saffronized than the self-proclaiming Sitaram Yechury of today, Frank Moraes in his book 'India Today' (1960), showed a clearer understanding of India as a nation of unity amidst great cultural diversity, when he wrote: 'The Indian Constitution of 1950 ordains that the State shall be secular; but however enlightened and well intentioned this proviso is, it cannot in itself erase the imprint of history. For better or worse, Hinduism has set its stamp on India and pervaded every sphere of life from the social and economic to the cultural and political. Unlike other religions, Hinduism is confined largely to the territorial limits of India, and gives that country its distinctive character and outlook.' All the communist leaders of India are going out of their way to deny this simple fact so eloquently recorded by Frank Moraes.
Stalin wrote a book on 'Marxism and the National Question' in 1913 in close collaboration with Lenin. In this book, definitely not influenced by Guruji Golwalkar, the Leninist definition of a nation was summarized as 'A historically evolved, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture'.
Ernest Renan (1823 - 1892) clearly defined a nation in 1882 which should shock all the pseudo-secular rascals and political swindlers of India. He said: 'A nation is a soul, a spiritual principle. Two things, which in truth are but one, constitute this soul or spiritual principle. One lies in the past, one in the present. One is the possession in common of a rich legacy of memories; the other is present-day consent, the desire to live together, the will to perpetuate the value of the heritage that one has received in an undivided form'. For men like Sitaram Yechury and his Communist tribe, only the Muslims and Christians in India are entitled to the terrestrial benefit of this spiritual definition of Ernest Renan. According to the CPI (M) and all the other Communist parties of India who owe their allegiance only to Soviet Russia and China - not to the Russian or Chinese people but only to the Communist Party in both countries. Hindus in numerical majority in India can have no history; they can have no racial, social or cultural memories. An open consortium of pseudo-secular bandits, committed to the only cause of destruction of India through destruction of Hindu Religion, Society and Culture, wants to erase the cultural and racial memories of every patriotic Hindu by confiscating their thoughts and memories.
George Orwell (1903-1950) in his great novel '1984' published in 1949 envisioned a totalitarian world of 1984 in which a morally corrupt Government maintains absolute power by systematically depriving its subjects of their identities and by denying them any hope of cultural legacy. No one can deny this novel's power, its hold on the imaginations of whole generations, or the power of its admonitions - a power that seems to grow, not lessen, with the passage of time. Communists of all grades and shades like Sitaram Yechuri, Prakash Karat, Brinda Karat, A.B. Bardan and the like are collectively working together to obliterate the social, cultural and spiritual legacy of all the Hindus of India today in the way in which George Orwell described it in his novel '1984'. Writing in 1949, with the horrific examples of Adolf Hitler (1889-1945) and Joseph Stalin (1879-1953) fresh in his mind, he envisioned a dark society in which people's touchstones are battered, shattered and pulverized as a matter of public policy. George Orwell wrote of a Ministry of Truth where the official records of past events are constantly monitored to suit immediate political needs. A slogan trumpeted by the novel's ruling elite suggests why tyrants and dictators of all eras have always been inspired to pursue such seemingly surreal goals: 'Whoever controls the past controls the future, whoever controls the present controls the past'. Any one among the pseudo-secular non-men like Sitaram Yechuri would love to be a Union Cabinet Minister in the Ministry of Truth if it were to be established in New Delhi today with the full benediction of the Catholic Sonia Gandhi from distant Italy and the Islamic Imam of Jumma Masjid close at home to achieve this noble end!!
Against this lurid background, it becomes the bounden duty of the Hindus of India today to wake up from pseudo-secular slumber and unite and democratically fight for the larger cause of establishment of a Hindu Raj or Hindu Rastra envisioned by great Indian leaders like Bala Gangadara Thilak, Veer Savarkar, Dr Hegdewar, Sri Guruji Golwalkar, Shyama Prasad Mukerji, Deendayal Upadhyaya and others. Only the achievement of total Hindu unity and Hindu solidarity can lead to the democratic ostracisation of all the anti-Hindu pseudo-secular political parties in India like the Congress, the CPI(M), the CPI, the RJD, the Lok Jan Sakthi, the DMK, all the political parties forming part of the anti-Hindu and anti-Hinduism UPA coalition Government in New Delhi today.
Hitler always smelt the odour of international Jewry in all contexts, places and situations. Sitaram Yechury's deathless hatred for the Hindus exceeds the unquenchable hatred which Hitler had for the Jews. No wonder he smelt the rat of Hindutva in the Presidential address recently given by our President Abdul Kalam in the Parliament. The President had just finished his rather routine address to a joint sitting of Parliament, and the Hindi translation was being read out - a job that to everyone's relief is confined normally to the first and last paragraphs. The President did not realize that a pseudo-secular cobra was lurking in the last line of the first paragraph that spoke of the country's - commitment to building a strong, modern, inclusive, secular and dynamic India. Someone in the cabinet secretariat had translated 'secular' as panthnirapeksh instead of the more common dharmnirapeksh. Sitaram Yechury protested strongly against the use of the prefix 'Panth' in the word panthnirapeksh. He said 'Panth' means sect. This is the language that the RSS normally uses to underline that Hinduism is a religion and the rest like Christianity and Islam are mere sects. We are supporting the government to keep the communal forces out, but the President in his Hindi translation uses panthnirapeksh. In the case of Communist leaders of India, the distinction between the sublime and the ridiculous is often so marginal like that of the two exciting Sections in the Indian Penal Code. I am referring to the subtle distinction in the IPC between 'House Trespass' and 'Lurking House Trespass'. When I look at the response of Sitaram Yechuri to the Presidential address, I am at a loss to understand as to which of the two Sections of the IPC can be applied in a non-saffronized and secular manner!!
(The writer is a retired IAS officer)
V SUNDARAM
Islam-embracing, Christianity-coveting and Hindu-hating parliamentarian of convoluted fame, Sitaram Yechury, in a learned article has recently declared: 'Accordingly Golwalkar proceeds to assert that we means 'Hindus' and, hence, 'Swaraj' means 'Hindu Raj' or 'Hindu Rashtra.' Taking recourse to mythology instead of history, theology instead of philosophy, Golwalkar 'established' that the Hindus were always, and continue to remain, a nation. He proceeds to assert the intolerant, theocratic content of such a Hindu nation. The conclusion is unquestionably forced upon us that in Hindustan exists and must need exist the ancient Hindu nation and naught else but the Hindu nation. All those not belonging to the national Hindu race, religion, culture and language naturally fall out of the pale of our real 'National' life'. In the 60th year of our independence, the effort to consolidate the modern Indian republic based on the foundations of secular democracy, federalism, social justice and economic self reliance requires a democratic ostracisation of such pernicious political projects.'
To the anti-Hindu Communists like Sitaram Yechury, India may appear to be a land inhabited only by the descendants of Mohammed of Ghazni (971-1030 A.D.) or Mohammed of Ghori (1162-1206 AD) or St Francis Xavier (1502-1552 AD) alone. For him India means only 'Islamic India' and 'Christian India' and nothing else. For the Communists of India with their superincumbent international egotism, and vain - glorious pretensions, perhaps the history of India starts only with the date of birth of Mohammed of Ghazni in 971 AD. For communists in general and Sitaram Yechury in particular it will make greater sense to argue that India has greater cultural or spiritual or metaphysical connections with Stalin of Russia or Mao Tse Tung of China and more particularly his beloved concubines graphically described with Communist clarity if not conviction by his own personal Medical Doctor for more than 30 years.
Countries are very much like individuals, subject to not dissimular pressures, internal and external, influenced by environment, events, traditions and training. The past 60 years after the independence of India can no more be isolated or divorced from the context of 5 millenniums of eternal India's history and culture than an individual's life and character be divorced from the lives of his forebears, his own background and upbringing.
Ernest Renan (1823 - 1892)
A nation is not a notion
Lenin (1870 - 1924)
A notion is not a nation
Viewed in this non-Communist light, the history of India is predominantly and inevitably the history of Hinduism, for out of a total population of nearly thousand and six million, well over 80 % are Hindus. Although Hinduism as we know it today emerged long before 2500 BC, yet some historians have adduced evidence to establish its origin in the Indus Valley Civilization of Mohenjo-daro, which goes back to around 3000 BC. According to Sir John Marshall, who supervised the excavations in the Indus Valley, enough evidence appears in the fragments recovered 'to demonstrate that this religion of the Indian people was the lineal progenitor of Hinduism.' This would make Hinduism almost coincidental with the beginnings of Indian civilization.
A very great journalist and one who was in no way less non-saffronized than the self-proclaiming Sitaram Yechury of today, Frank Moraes in his book 'India Today' (1960), showed a clearer understanding of India as a nation of unity amidst great cultural diversity, when he wrote: 'The Indian Constitution of 1950 ordains that the State shall be secular; but however enlightened and well intentioned this proviso is, it cannot in itself erase the imprint of history. For better or worse, Hinduism has set its stamp on India and pervaded every sphere of life from the social and economic to the cultural and political. Unlike other religions, Hinduism is confined largely to the territorial limits of India, and gives that country its distinctive character and outlook.' All the communist leaders of India are going out of their way to deny this simple fact so eloquently recorded by Frank Moraes.
Stalin wrote a book on 'Marxism and the National Question' in 1913 in close collaboration with Lenin. In this book, definitely not influenced by Guruji Golwalkar, the Leninist definition of a nation was summarized as 'A historically evolved, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture'.
Ernest Renan (1823 - 1892) clearly defined a nation in 1882 which should shock all the pseudo-secular rascals and political swindlers of India. He said: 'A nation is a soul, a spiritual principle. Two things, which in truth are but one, constitute this soul or spiritual principle. One lies in the past, one in the present. One is the possession in common of a rich legacy of memories; the other is present-day consent, the desire to live together, the will to perpetuate the value of the heritage that one has received in an undivided form'. For men like Sitaram Yechury and his Communist tribe, only the Muslims and Christians in India are entitled to the terrestrial benefit of this spiritual definition of Ernest Renan. According to the CPI (M) and all the other Communist parties of India who owe their allegiance only to Soviet Russia and China - not to the Russian or Chinese people but only to the Communist Party in both countries. Hindus in numerical majority in India can have no history; they can have no racial, social or cultural memories. An open consortium of pseudo-secular bandits, committed to the only cause of destruction of India through destruction of Hindu Religion, Society and Culture, wants to erase the cultural and racial memories of every patriotic Hindu by confiscating their thoughts and memories.
George Orwell (1903-1950) in his great novel '1984' published in 1949 envisioned a totalitarian world of 1984 in which a morally corrupt Government maintains absolute power by systematically depriving its subjects of their identities and by denying them any hope of cultural legacy. No one can deny this novel's power, its hold on the imaginations of whole generations, or the power of its admonitions - a power that seems to grow, not lessen, with the passage of time. Communists of all grades and shades like Sitaram Yechuri, Prakash Karat, Brinda Karat, A.B. Bardan and the like are collectively working together to obliterate the social, cultural and spiritual legacy of all the Hindus of India today in the way in which George Orwell described it in his novel '1984'. Writing in 1949, with the horrific examples of Adolf Hitler (1889-1945) and Joseph Stalin (1879-1953) fresh in his mind, he envisioned a dark society in which people's touchstones are battered, shattered and pulverized as a matter of public policy. George Orwell wrote of a Ministry of Truth where the official records of past events are constantly monitored to suit immediate political needs. A slogan trumpeted by the novel's ruling elite suggests why tyrants and dictators of all eras have always been inspired to pursue such seemingly surreal goals: 'Whoever controls the past controls the future, whoever controls the present controls the past'. Any one among the pseudo-secular non-men like Sitaram Yechuri would love to be a Union Cabinet Minister in the Ministry of Truth if it were to be established in New Delhi today with the full benediction of the Catholic Sonia Gandhi from distant Italy and the Islamic Imam of Jumma Masjid close at home to achieve this noble end!!
Against this lurid background, it becomes the bounden duty of the Hindus of India today to wake up from pseudo-secular slumber and unite and democratically fight for the larger cause of establishment of a Hindu Raj or Hindu Rastra envisioned by great Indian leaders like Bala Gangadara Thilak, Veer Savarkar, Dr Hegdewar, Sri Guruji Golwalkar, Shyama Prasad Mukerji, Deendayal Upadhyaya and others. Only the achievement of total Hindu unity and Hindu solidarity can lead to the democratic ostracisation of all the anti-Hindu pseudo-secular political parties in India like the Congress, the CPI(M), the CPI, the RJD, the Lok Jan Sakthi, the DMK, all the political parties forming part of the anti-Hindu and anti-Hinduism UPA coalition Government in New Delhi today.
Hitler always smelt the odour of international Jewry in all contexts, places and situations. Sitaram Yechury's deathless hatred for the Hindus exceeds the unquenchable hatred which Hitler had for the Jews. No wonder he smelt the rat of Hindutva in the Presidential address recently given by our President Abdul Kalam in the Parliament. The President had just finished his rather routine address to a joint sitting of Parliament, and the Hindi translation was being read out - a job that to everyone's relief is confined normally to the first and last paragraphs. The President did not realize that a pseudo-secular cobra was lurking in the last line of the first paragraph that spoke of the country's - commitment to building a strong, modern, inclusive, secular and dynamic India. Someone in the cabinet secretariat had translated 'secular' as panthnirapeksh instead of the more common dharmnirapeksh. Sitaram Yechury protested strongly against the use of the prefix 'Panth' in the word panthnirapeksh. He said 'Panth' means sect. This is the language that the RSS normally uses to underline that Hinduism is a religion and the rest like Christianity and Islam are mere sects. We are supporting the government to keep the communal forces out, but the President in his Hindi translation uses panthnirapeksh. In the case of Communist leaders of India, the distinction between the sublime and the ridiculous is often so marginal like that of the two exciting Sections in the Indian Penal Code. I am referring to the subtle distinction in the IPC between 'House Trespass' and 'Lurking House Trespass'. When I look at the response of Sitaram Yechuri to the Presidential address, I am at a loss to understand as to which of the two Sections of the IPC can be applied in a non-saffronized and secular manner!!
(The writer is a retired IAS officer)