On Subramanian Swamy's Hindutva

After Subramanian Swamy wrote his DNA article on "How to wipe Islamic Terror", there have been many repercussions. On one hand some people in Harvard - a student group - have demanded that Harvard must discontinue academic association with Swamy while some others - the civil liberties group - have advocated that he be allowed to express his opinions.

There have been two rebuttals by Muslim authors in India. One is by Faizur Rehman titled: "Subramanian Swamy‘s Two Faces: Disinformation Campaigns to Divide Indians will Fail" (here) while the other is by Ayub Khan titled: "Subramanian Swamy’s transformation into a merchant of hate" (here). Both of these quote mr. Swamy's earlier article in Frontline (here).

In the Frontline article Mr. Swamy accuses the RSS of being fascist:

"...
Today the creeping fascism of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) is coming upon us not as gradually as imperialism did, nor as suddenly as did the Emergency. Its spread is being calibrated adroitly by seven faceless men of the RSS, the RSS "high command".
..."

He criticizes RSS for being anti-Muslim, targeting Christians, while not being pro-Hindu, and so on, and he ends his article with the following hope:

"...
Of course, the good news is that the game plan can fail. I live on the hope that in India, no well-laid plan ever works. India, after all, is a functioning anarchy. That has been the undoing of every attempt to straitjacket its society. That is why we ar e still the longest continuing unbroken civilisation of over 10,000 years. The RSS is, luckily, our counter-culture. The vibrations of Mother India will, I hope, be its undoing.
..."

On his party website, Mr. Swamy has claimed that for the past many years he has been espousing the cause of Hindutva, while his party profile speaks of basic secularism! It also appears that Mr. Swamy has broken ice with the Sangh and wrote an article for them, see an example, the article titled Search for Hindu Agenda. Mr. Swamy also wrote a book "Hindus under Siege".

So the question is, what is the reality of this man, Mr. Subramanian Swamy? We would advocate exercising caution. Hindus must be extremely careful while choosing their leaders. We have been back-stabbed so many times that it will be prudent to wear the armor of caution all the time.

We find that RSS is not at all anti-Muslim. Rather we lament that RSS is not sufficiently clear about Islam and therefore Muslims as well. This is a folly that Mr. Swamy commits in greater measure compared to RSS when he daydreams that by "acknowledging with pride that his ancestors were Hindus", the Muslims can be included in the Brihad Hindu Samaj. We reiterate that there may be moderate Muslims but there is no Moderate Islam, and often the best Muslims are the least Muslims.

Despite being confused about Hinduism, the RSS has worked for donkey's years for the Hindus. As we have mentioned earlier, the heart of the RSS is better placed than their head. While Mr. Swamy's brain seems addled on the Islam-Muslim issue, his heart has been unpredictable, to say the least. He has come a long way from terming RSS a fascist organization to writing in their newsletter on Hindutva.

However, as Hindus (followers of Sanatana Dharma), we should focus on clear understanding for ourselves lest our leaders delude us. At the same time, we should always choose a leader who supports Hindus and Hinduism more. So if Swamy supports us more, we may prefer him over RSS and vice versa. At the same time, at the intellectual or thought level, we must have very clear concepts and priorities.

Mr. Swamy, however intelligent he may be, has been a maverick. A look at the articles given at the party site makes it clear that Mr. Swamy has been bed-fellows with strange people, though he may claim that he has had a clear conscience and a consistent philosophy. We need not hold it against him. But the burden of proof must be on him to show that he is for the Hindus. On his party's website he has posted many articles, some of which are on Hindutva . We recommend you read them and form your own judgment. But beware, his party believes in egalitarian and Gandhian ideals! So we would be extremely suspicious of him.

Yeddy and Reddy, not Ready?

The drama surrounding the Lokayukta report closed by Mr. Hegde filing his report. Santosh Hegde, who may possibly be right in his indictment of Yeddy, has played as a pawn in the hands of Congress. Justice Hegde is a media savvy and media seeking person. There are multiple aspects of this story, we will concentrate on a few of them:

1. Santosh Hegde, Congress and Anna Hazare:

Even after being indicted by a Lokpal, if a chief minister can hold his turf, it shows that the Lokpal which Hegde - who is a sympathiser of Anna's team - is seeking at the center, will be as ineffective as Hegde has been. For example, if the Lokpal at the center indicts Manmohan, he will wait even after Sonia orders him to resign!

Lokpal himself can become indulgent in activism. Who checks the Lokpal? We have mentioned this point earlier. In this particular case, we do not feel empathatic to Hegde. Hegde wanted to make at least one CM resign before he retired. His motivation seems similar to the retiring DGP DV Guruprasad who wanted to be IGP, even if for a month, before retiring. Do we think such ambitions are wrong? We will dodge this question. We say that personal ambitions should be irrelevant, however, in any mechanism design, the fact that individuals have their own personal ambitions must be taken into consideration. Anna thinks that his Lokpal will be above suspicion, and that is rubbish. For all we know, Anna, like Hegde, wants a Prime Minister to be forced to resign by a Lokpal at the center.

As a person Santosh Hegde has been a sissy. This whole idea of Lokpal, the team Anna and the Congress itself are part of the broader Congress-culture of rampant hypocrisy and double standards which all other parties have inherited or imbibed. This is part of the Mohandasian culture of low-thinking and high-preaching.

2. B S Yeddyurappa:

BSY has been just another chief minister. He is no angel, at the same time he is no worse than his predecessors or other past or present CMs in other states. Sheila Dikshit is worse than BSY, but has not been forced to resign yet. On a personal front, BSY has come a long way from his past when he was inclined to tears. And now he is clinging as much as he can, though there is news that he has consented to resign.

BSY is also being criticized for his demands that he wants his loyal to succeed him and his wanting a say in the allotment of ministerial berths. This quality too, though worthy of criticism, is not something that BSY alone is guilty of! Laloo relinquished his post only for Rabdidevi. This whole dynastic family culture, both in and out of Congress, is owing to that. Since the times of just pre-Islamic-invasion days, we have suffered from leadership embroiled in nepotism, despotism and back-stabbing. Be that kings or be it modern politicians.


3. The BJP, Sushma Swaraj, Arun Jaitley, Rajnath Singh:

The BJP has been clownish on this front. They should have had their own internal evaluation of BSY and should have encouraged BSY to resign on his own much earlier. And if they have been unequal to this, they should have been shameless, like Congress, and allowed BSY to continue till the courts ordered such a thing. As we have mentioned BJP always comes across as second-rate Congress. When they need conviction they exhibit tact, and when they must exercise tact they betray sissy convictions. This is the reason they are not an alternative to Congress, nor are they a party with a difference. They are a party with diffidence.

Rajnath Singh who caused the decline and downfall of Kalyan Singh is a frustrated man. He is akin to ex-PM Chandrashekhar of yesteryears who was waiting to be a PM for donkey's years. Then there are politicians who lack leadership qualities. Also, there are many people in public life who practice the policy of "Can't do, won't let do".

Thayee, Sushma Swaraj, is conspicuous by her absence. Now if Yeddy goes, can she or will she save Reddys? And if she can't safeguard Reddys now, why did she mastermind the fall of BSY that took place earlier? There are people in public life who follow the policy: "Either you are subservient to me, or an enemy of mine".

Jaitley has been trying to maintain a brave face, but it does not rescue the matter at hand.


4. The High Command Culture:

If Lokpal report is important enough, then BSY should have resigned as soon as the report was out. And if he refused the quit then only a judicial mechanism should have the powers to throw him. In this way, either moral force or legal force exerts pressure. However, in India, we have the "high command culture". A defiant CM suddenly bows to party discipline. It looks as if there are no rhymes and no reasons. Pure stupid sentimentality! We mention that we are not averse to sentiments, but we do criticize stupid sentimentality.

This also shows that India does not have the federal structure that it boasts it has. It has the Congress culture, that of high-command.

These dramas will not change unless there are electoral reforms. We, however, favor a new Constitution. (See here and here)

Swamy on Islamic Terror

Mr. Subramanian Swamy's article has been criticized for the usual reasons which are cited by Secularists and Socialists, namely Islamophobia and so on.

We want to critically analyze the article from a somewhat Hindu perspective.

His lessons that 1. We must develop Hindu Mindset, 2. We must Not Concede anything however small, 3. We must practice Massive Retaliation, and 4. We must reject Non-Islam theories of Islamic Terror. are very important. However, he concedes critical ground by advocating:

"...
The Muslims of India can join us if they genuinely feel for the Hindu. That they do I will not believe unless they acknowledge with pride that though they may be Muslims, their ancestors were Hindus. If any Muslim acknowledges his or her Hindu legacy, then we Hindus can accept him or her as a part of the Brihad Hindu Samaj (greater Hindu society) which is Hindustan.
..."

He fails to recognize that a Muslim is infected with the Koranic virus and simple "acknowledging with pride that his ancestors were Hindus" will not cleanse his system.


Similarly, Swamy makes critical mistake in giving a clean chit to Manmohan:

"...
For example, Manmohan Singh has high personal character, but by being a rubber stamp of a semi-literate Sonia Gandhi and waffling on all national issues, he has proved that he has no rashtriya charitra.
..."

Swamy has exhibited an incredible ignorance by opining this. He fails to recognize that if Manmohan is a man of high personal character then he would have resigned long time ago, as soon as he realized that he had to choose between being honest and being a rubber stamp. Please note that if Manmohan in his dog-like loyalty and honesty has acceeded to be Sonia's pet then he must be criticized for his canine intelligence!


He has given a commendable set of goals, and an important aspect in the recommendation is tackling India's social problems:

"...
that caste is not based on birth but on code or discipline. Welcome non-Hindus to re-convert to the caste of their choice provided they adhere to the code of discipline.
..."

But he fails to recognize that such a step cannot come about by political means, unless he is dreaming of government coerced societal change which is Socialism in disguise. Even though Mr. Swamy has mentioned an important thing, his approach is flawed.

Such a change can come about only if we as Hindu society learn (swadhyaya) and practice spirituality and have seers and sages amongst us again who can rightly educate us on the varnashrama both intellectually and practically.

By suggesting "declaring that caste is not based on birth", Mr. Swamy advocates statism.

And as mentioned earlier, the most crucial and critical aspect that is missing in Swamy's approach is the need to Discredit Koran and Islam.


Unless there is an understanding that there is no peaceful Islam which is being hijacked by fundamentalists and that even though there may be moderate Muslims, there is no moderate Islam; and often the best Muslims are the Least Muslims; we will be perpetually deluding ourselves into believing that we can integrate Muslims into what Mr. Swamy calls the Brihad Hindu Samaj.

However, Mr. Swamy has taken a baby step in the right direction. He needs to complete his journey further.

And we remind Hindus, as we do here:

O Hindus, realize that no politician is representing you! So you need to choose and send politicians from among yourselves. Make new politicians, make new political parties. Encourage people with spine to become your representatives. Otherwise you will be led by a bunch of Mohandas and Jawahar clones. And surely they will lead you to your doom!

Killing in Norway

One may not form a coherent and cogent understanding from what one reads and what one perceives. One may not be intellectually capable of deciding what actions to perform out of whatever understanding he may have developed. After all, oftentimes real life situations are very very complex and difficult to deal with.

However, on learning about an act, drawing premature conclusions about the understanding and about the material that was read including those who wrote what was read, is quite simplemindedness. More over, it is hypocritical when a completely orthogonal approach is taken in thousands of other cases which are quite similar.

Consider an example in which a person A (or persons A,B,C), who claim to have read X, Y, Z, kill tens (hundreds) of people. What should be our position? Well, let us tell you what the current practice is:

If A (A,B,C) are Muslims who are inspired (or have read) Koran and kill infidels then the model is:

A, B, C have committed crime, but they are gullible people who were victims (of discrimination, and so on) and were indoctrinated by those who misrepresent an otherwise peaceful writing of Koran. And thus, though A,B,C must be tried for the crimes, utmost care must be taken not to tarnish the beautiful religion of peace called Islam, and not alienate Muslims.

If A is a Norwegian white, who read some stuff including Hindutva and killed those who he thought were collaborators with Muslims then the model is:

In the West:

A is a Christian Fundamentalist who is friendly to Hindutva and thus we must discredit Christianity, Whiteness and Hindutva.

In India, the model will soon reduce to:

Hindu organizations are fundamentalist and they are planning pogroms as they did in Gujarat.

Both the western and Indian people have to learn to call the bluff on this deception.

We are not sitting in judgment over the Norwegian man, nor are we saying that what he did was right. What we are emphasizing is that even before we understand the total picture, we must have the honesty and integrity to follow a consistent approach.

Another point that we must not overlook is that events may be correlated. Hitler ordered killing of Jews. American president ordered nuking of Japan that resulted in killing of millions of Japanese. How are these two events judged? It will be horrible to sympathize with killing of Japanese, right? And yet, the idea to nuke Japan was mooted as that appeared to be an effective way to defeat the Axis forces. Again, we are not rejudging history here, we only want to mention that if the act in Norway has happened as a reaction to somethings that have happened previously, the previous happenings must also be given due credence.

To judge may be easy, but to be wise in judgment is arduous.

Our view is that there is such widespread and gross unfairness and evil that is going on in the name of multiculturalism, affirmative action, secularism, social justice, feminism, socialism, minority rights, and so on; that unless drastic measures are taken quickly enough, the consequences are going to be far far worse. These are ominous signs and it will be insane to ignore these and parroting multi-culti and liberal platitudes.

Socialism, Judiciary, and Activism

In a recent judgment the Supreme Court has spoken profusely on the activism shown by the judiciary. The judgement came on a PIL filed by an NGO, National Campaign for Dignity and Rights of Sewerage and Allied Workers, highlighting the frequent deaths of sewage workers trapped in manholes.

The court pooh-poohed the allegation of judicial activism.

The court said it is praised when it gives judgments in favour of the rich but condemned with a “theoretical debate raising the bogey of judicial activism” when it gives relief to the poor on a PIL.

A Bench of Justices G S Singhvi and A K Ganguly, in a 45-page judgment, said

the highest court will be failing in its constitutional duty if it does not accept genuine PILs and “those who are decrying public interest litigation do not seem to realise that courts are not meant only for the rich and the well-to-do, for the landlord and the gentry, for the business magnate and the industrial tycoon but they exist also for the poor and the down-trodden, the have-nots and the handicapped and the half-hungry millions of our countrymen”.

However the court did not specify what it thought to be its constitutional duty. Prior to the 42nd amendment India was not a Socialist country. So, do we assume that the obligations of the court changed after this amendment?

The court ensuring that everyone is equal before the law can be a constitutional and legal obligation. It is correct in saying that the law exists for all, both the rich and the poor.

However,

In a startling observation, the bench said that “so far the courts have been used only for the purpose of vindicating the rights of the wealthy and the affluent.”

This is an observation which smacks of socialist activism. We need to notice the obvious and realize that Affirmative Action and Social Justice, especially when coerced by the state are unfair actions primarily aimed at redistribution of wealth, where the state robs the haves for the sake of havenots while constantly increasing its own (the state's own) power over the people.

We, as the peoples, are facing a dual crisis. One of inaction by the legislative and the executive, and the other of socialistic activism by the judiciary.

We need to make it clear that we are not opposing the protection offered by this judgment to the workers. We are appreciating the fact that the rights of the people are upheld. What we are criticizing is that the court is failing in its duty while it refuses to chastise the government for not leaving domains where private enterprise can offer services on a competitive basis and under consumer protection laws. Also the judiciary exceeds it boundaries when it identifies itself with statist socialistic activism.

Why has the Supreme Court not given a similar ultimatum to the government for increasing the number of courts and judges?

Further, notice the court statements:

1. “It is only these privileged classes which have been able to approach the courts for protecting their vested interests. It is only the moneyed who have so far had the golden key to unlock the doors of justice,”

If it is only the privileged classes who had the access to justice, whose fault is it? What is the corrective action being recommended by the Supreme Court?

2. “There is a misconception in the minds of some lawyers, journalists and men in public life that public interest litigation is unnecessarily cluttering up the files of the court and adding to the already staggering arrears of cases which are pending for long years and it should not therefore be encouraged by the court. This is, to our mind, a totally perverse view smacking of elitist and status quoist approach,”

Isn't the SC itself being elitist? Isn't it even being status quoist if it has not given a similar ultimatum to the government for increasing the number of courts and judges?

3. “If the sugar barons and the alcohol kings have the fundamental right to carry on their business and to fatten their purses by exploiting the consuming public, have the Chamars belonging to the lowest strata of society no fundamental right to earn an honest living through their sweat and toil?”

Terming voluntary exchange between the manufacturers of a commodity and consumers of the commodity as exploitation the SC has betrayed its Social Engineering proclivities. It assumes that the rich exploit and the poor toil. It refuses to see the glaring facts that affirmative action is exploitation as well. The courts exist not only for protecting citizens from other citizens, but also for protecting the citizens from the state, especially a state which is a commission agent of wealth redistribution.

4. The most unfortunate part, the court said, is that when the judiciary issues directions for ensuring the right to equality, life and liberty of those who suffer from the handicaps of poverty, illiteracy and ignorance, “a theoretical debate is started by raising the bogey of judicial activism or judicial overreach”.

Is equality the equality of opportunity or equality of result? These two hugely differ in their meanings. The former is fairness while the latter unfair.

Conclusion:

1. While there is large scale apathy and inaction in the Legislative and the Executive, it is encouraging to see action on part of the judiciary.

2. However, the action is not well guided, however well intentioned it may appear to be. Further, the misguided action can be counter-productive and worse than status quo!

3. Let there be change for the better, for we must remember that not all change is necessarily good!

4. If the SC reveres the constitution then it must forsake activism but if it wants to be active for the upholding of justice and fairness in a larger perspective then it must open itself to questioning of unfairness in the constitution itself. Otherwise this selective activism betrays prejudice which is the worst form of injustice and unfairness.