A reader has blamed me for being selective in my criticisms. In particular, the reader, sdn, wrote:
To preserving hindu interest what we need is forward looking outlook what to be done next, by whom, how constructive suggestions proactive actions.
But typically what we are seeing is reassessment of past - where nothing is new but gaining more and more experience and expertise!
Blame Nehru, Gandhi, Indira, Vajpayee, LKA and now add Golwalkar (dont talk about Namboodari pad, Charu Mujumdar, Lohia ....)
Blame game - RSS blaming Congress, VoI blaming RSS, etc.
Skewed analysis criticising LKA talking of Hindu ethos (Note that Manmohan singh, Gadkari, Karat and Laloo dont talk about Hindu ethos and they are not criticised)
SDN's comment has two parts.
1. That reassessment of past is incompatible with forward looking outlook.
and
2. I criticize many but not all. Specifically, I have not criticized Namboodripad, Charu Majumdar, Lohia, Manmohan and so on.
The first point is moot. If SDN is recommending that we must not look at and reassess the past, and that we must just concentrate on deciding future course of actions, one can at best sympathize with his acumen. Endless reassessment with no hint of a plan for proactive future action may merit disapproval, but censuring even a reasonable reassessment before action is downright foolhardiness.
The attempt to understand the past is indeed intended to develop a proper attitude for forward looking outlook. Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat the mistakes of the past. Any preoccupation with an urgency for the new with no understanding of the past will result in merely a cosmetic change of the policies of the past. This will clearly precipitate in the very mistakes that we should actively want to avoid.
This partially answers why I criticize.
The second point is rather good. Even though I often clarify my stand on targets of my frequent criticism, I have never outlined a principled stand regarding my choice.
The purpose of this author is to work towards bringing about a reestablishment through reawakening of Truth Based Civilization. We have been using the terms, Sanatana Dharma, or Hindu-WOL (Hindu Way of Life) synonymously.
Mohandasian Non-violence, Jawaharian Secular State, Socialistic Affirmative-action have all been termed poisonous. Having swept all political leaders belonging to this creed in one stroke, I do not think there is any need to mention them and their follies again and again. In my opinion, they are so worthless that it is not worth criticizing them except occasionally.
Sangh Parivar and its members are a different matter. They claim to be the protectors of the Hindu interests. So, to the undiscerning, they appear quite worthy. I have also mentioned that some of their actions which spring from their heart do merit appreciation. However, their biggest shortcoming is in the cerebral domain. Despite claiming to be avowed opponents of poisonous ideologies, their words often betray implicit acceptance of the very poisonous ideas.
What can one surmise to be the fate of Hindus, if their best protagonists are so far below the necessary standards? What should one do, if not to point out this lacunae again and again, till the points sink in and understanding emerges?
Who should one criticize, if not those who lay claim on the crown of protectors of the Hindus? Is it worth wasting the critical acumen on worthless creeps, which is what Congress and Communist parties of various denominations mostly comprise of?
To preserving hindu interest what we need is forward looking outlook what to be done next, by whom, how constructive suggestions proactive actions.
But typically what we are seeing is reassessment of past - where nothing is new but gaining more and more experience and expertise!
Blame Nehru, Gandhi, Indira, Vajpayee, LKA and now add Golwalkar (dont talk about Namboodari pad, Charu Mujumdar, Lohia ....)
Blame game - RSS blaming Congress, VoI blaming RSS, etc.
Skewed analysis criticising LKA talking of Hindu ethos (Note that Manmohan singh, Gadkari, Karat and Laloo dont talk about Hindu ethos and they are not criticised)
SDN's comment has two parts.
1. That reassessment of past is incompatible with forward looking outlook.
and
2. I criticize many but not all. Specifically, I have not criticized Namboodripad, Charu Majumdar, Lohia, Manmohan and so on.
The first point is moot. If SDN is recommending that we must not look at and reassess the past, and that we must just concentrate on deciding future course of actions, one can at best sympathize with his acumen. Endless reassessment with no hint of a plan for proactive future action may merit disapproval, but censuring even a reasonable reassessment before action is downright foolhardiness.
The attempt to understand the past is indeed intended to develop a proper attitude for forward looking outlook. Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat the mistakes of the past. Any preoccupation with an urgency for the new with no understanding of the past will result in merely a cosmetic change of the policies of the past. This will clearly precipitate in the very mistakes that we should actively want to avoid.
This partially answers why I criticize.
The second point is rather good. Even though I often clarify my stand on targets of my frequent criticism, I have never outlined a principled stand regarding my choice.
The purpose of this author is to work towards bringing about a reestablishment through reawakening of Truth Based Civilization. We have been using the terms, Sanatana Dharma, or Hindu-WOL (Hindu Way of Life) synonymously.
Mohandasian Non-violence, Jawaharian Secular State, Socialistic Affirmative-action have all been termed poisonous. Having swept all political leaders belonging to this creed in one stroke, I do not think there is any need to mention them and their follies again and again. In my opinion, they are so worthless that it is not worth criticizing them except occasionally.
Sangh Parivar and its members are a different matter. They claim to be the protectors of the Hindu interests. So, to the undiscerning, they appear quite worthy. I have also mentioned that some of their actions which spring from their heart do merit appreciation. However, their biggest shortcoming is in the cerebral domain. Despite claiming to be avowed opponents of poisonous ideologies, their words often betray implicit acceptance of the very poisonous ideas.
What can one surmise to be the fate of Hindus, if their best protagonists are so far below the necessary standards? What should one do, if not to point out this lacunae again and again, till the points sink in and understanding emerges?
Who should one criticize, if not those who lay claim on the crown of protectors of the Hindus? Is it worth wasting the critical acumen on worthless creeps, which is what Congress and Communist parties of various denominations mostly comprise of?
The need of the hour is to work towards a political scenario wherein even the Communist parties fight for always the cause of Hindus, rather than continuing in the present situation wherein the Hindutva brigade remains busy proving itself to be secular! And under these circumstance, it is only those who claim to profess Hindutva, while betraying secularism, who need to be chastised. The non-Hindutva types do not even deserve mention, except sparingly.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are not moderated. Please read the About Us page. If you have outright disagreement, then you may not have much use commenting. You are free to record your disagreements in a civil manner. Repeated abuse, and irrelevant postings will be removed. Please avoid advertisements.
This blog does not honor political correctness. If your comment is posted, this does not mean that this blog endorses your views.
While I allow anonymous comments, please quote your twitter account if you want to have a referenced discussion.
There is a Suggestions Page, please post your suggestions regarding this blog as comments on that page.