Skip to main content

The Necessity of Indian Right Wing

"From Untrue to the True
From Darkness to Light
From Death to Immortality"

The Right-wing is defined by Oxford Dictionary as a Conservative or reactionary section of a Political Party or System. Merriam-Webster calls it a group of people who support conservative ideas and policies. 

The term came into being during the French revolution of 1789, wherein steep divides in position on various fundamental matters raised such situation that those with opposing views were advised to stick to one side to avoid physical violence. Those who were loyal to the king and religion took to the right side of the chair. This physical division continued till 1793 even after French legislative assembly came into being. 

From seating arrangement, this term became political and by the beginning of 20th century, spread across the globe. The term on both sides was used as some kind of derogatory way of defining the opposition. The Left technically stood for communism, group-think, state welfare, more of state control, less of national identity and progressive thoughts. Right stood for orthodoxy, conservatism, Individual rights and private enterprise. 

But then those are global definitions. When we look at India, things turn on their heads. I was once chatting with a friend of mine from the US. She was bemused as to why I was so much against leftist thought in India. Once we went debating the what Left and right stood for in India, it slowly emerged that in the Indian context, positions have reversed, where the right stood for liberal ideas, Individual emancipation and private enterprise. In fact, it might have reversed globally as well, but possibly the iron curtain was so strong that the west never realized what went on in the USSR, the mother of Leftist communism. The Gulags, executions and torture by an all-powerful state crushing any individual dissent, either never reached the west, or was hidden by the left-leaning intellectuals so as to never reach the people. The west had no real access to Communism. 

Every young man (and woman) is a leftist, but as one grows up, one tends to become rightist or at least a centrist. That is also evident from the fact that when Marxism and communism picked up as a philosophy, it came about as a noble thought of participative democracy. However, once the acceptance of the philosophy reached a certain critical mass, primarily with the desperation of the status-quo and with an interest in any thing except what is present; quickly the following rose. In no time, the people became collective, collectives became mob, and those who controlled the mobs, became absolutists and dictator. The philosophy built on the theoretical and theatrics soon unraveled into presenting us with the most dreaded dictators of this century. Quickly "Freedom of Expression" term used by the Left to gain foothold in a democracy gave way to institutional censorship in all communist nations. The thin ice on which the left stood is evident in in its quick failure. We find the quick rise of communism and the quick fall in the fact that from 30 odd nations we now have 6 nations following communism. 

Neither the Left nor the right is a homogeneous mass of people and the spectrum is wide. While the Right stand for conservatism and past, unlike left which is supposedly more progressive and forward-looking, it mostly is not so. The Right is all about the Individual. So when we look at individual minus the masses or the mob, equality will be a definitive response. The Right recognizes the masses, but ignores the individual. Of course, there will be a meritocratic hierarchy, based on individual capabilities but there will not be committee appointments as in case of a leftist world. Committee appointments are source of power to those who sit on those committees and therefore, are a source of corruption of the people in power who run those committees, which every communist society is plagued with. 

Equality among citizen will eventually pave way for individual respect and create a society accommodating individual differences and will be, in a sense, quite liberal, unlike a leftist world where lowest common denominator defines the chances of survival of any outlier. The left stands of smashing all that we call history and heritage, while the conservative right stands for defending it. The Right respects uniqueness (particularly the Right as we know in India). Let us not, for a moment, confuse the Right in India with some sort of Ku Klux Klan. Indian Right is Hindu Right which accommodates Duality with Uniformity, Spiritual with the Ritual. It celebrates differences, it defends debates. Interest of the the left in liberal thought is a facade, as we see largely violent protest to any thoughts which are not aligned to their own. 

Since Leftism is a relatively newer philosophy, the intellectual minds in the nearest past, when Marx came about as a rage, were in awe of the romantic hope and possibility this new philosophy presented, while the flaws of left were well hidden, possibly not by design, at that time, rather by novelty. As the romantic intellectuals joined in hoards to the new lofty ideology; This has resulted in the following century a complete leftist rule over the intellectual space. By the time, the juvenile hope in the romantic left began fading, the intellectuals realized that they held, by accident, a power too potent in their hands, which they were unwilling to let go. You look at all the places of intellectual world order- colleges, institutes, Press, media, writing and poetic societies; it is abundantly clear. As their cleverly crafted world begin the crumble, crude attempt to block this decline became more and more evident. The left held to its power by fake pretense of justice and an undeserving legitimacy which unquestioned rule over the global kingdom of mind provided. This is also a reason that this is the space which needs to be regained. Few in the Right realize it, most in the left do. The truth which beings in whispers soon rises in such a thunder that it drowns all the lies. That is why the left goes about crushing dissent so aggressively, calling you names, deriding your knowledge, stifling your voice. 

Social media became a great equalizer for the largely disadvantaged Rightist thought in India. It is the child of modern century. It did what type-writer did to the written world in earlier century. While the press, the media, educational institutions and political space is largely grabbed by the remnants of the failed early nineteen century philosophy, the social media, unregulated and ignored, became a platform for the people with views opposing the left. They are not willing to let it go easily. That makes the job of any new thought coming back is difficult. This makes the priests and priestesses of the old world order hate social media. But Social media became a big success. It gave voice to those whose thoughts earlier found no space in public debates. Mainstream media and college societies were intellectual echo-chambers of the Left. The left spoke and the left listened in the silence sipping their well-funded champagne. Their seminars on poor farmers happened in large air-conditioned auditoriums of the capital, and death of every poor man was a proof-point for them, a mere number in a debate with the right they desperately wanted to win.

If left had proof of successes, they could have relied on them to continue their position of intellectual supremacy. But we have the proofs of failure all around. The fall of communism is exposed in both economic and democratic failure. With a devastating chain of death, decay and destruction behind, the leftist philosophy faces existential challenge. As a philosophy, it is not an issue. The essential of any intellectually alive society is constant evolution, with discard of failing ideas. The issue is with the custodians of communism who see their citadels come crumbling down. They do not want to believe that they have failed, and they do not want the world to believe it either. A small electoral win of the left in a University of few thousand students is celebrated much eloquently in the media; while another win of Rightist students in the nearby University with few Hundred thousand students is whispered reluctantly . 

So they have to lie, they are forced to. When they talk about aligning with Islam, they forget that in China, basic Islamic practices and now even Muslim names are not allowed. Islam is a religion rapidly expanding. Communists want to cling to it, because left to its own devices, they have no future, as an idea, as a hope to the individual. Biggest enemy of communism is 'I' and this 'I' cannot be wished away, even when it becomes a part of 'We'. We can subjugate self for a higher goal but we cannot remove it from the minds of people. The people are disenchanted. They realize now that starched khaadi  of the Comrades doesn't come cheap and that the dreams of the progress of society with its constituents, the smallest unit, individual denied his and her  intellectual right, in favor of an mob-opinion is flawed and programmed for failure. When the truth is fractured, lying becomes a necessity. Religion and faith is always very private. Islam is a religion of community, of armies. It is not a religion of spiritual quest. Founder of Islam was the founder of an army, an empire. Communism crushes any idea which seeks to establish connection between society and soul.That is precisely what Islam is, connecting politics with the spiritual in some way. That is why it is not comfortable in its own truth; it wants to subsume any other truth that might exist. That is where it inherently contradicts communism. Islam wants religion to be out in open, Communism wants religion to be eradicated. That is how flawed Islamic-left unity is. Islam provides left headcount, brute power; Left provides the idea of Islamist supremacy intellectual legitimacy. So desperate is the left that it even claims literature criticizing a society resembling a Politburo state like George Orwell's 1984 as its own. Some day, they will claim that "We, The Living" of Ayn Rand is also to be about some Rightist majoritarian state. No one has exposed it like Christopher Hitchens when he refers to leftist demi-god Naom Chomsky's (a Leftist writer known for writing open letter for skirmishes in Delhi, but largely remains silent on the killings in kannur or the stupidly intolerant killing of Indians in the US) opposition to Muslim minority in Balkan wars and his support to organization like Al Quaeda and Taliban and writes- 

"If a supposed scholar takes the Christian-Orthodox side when it is the aggressor, and then switches to taking the Muslim side when Muslims commit mass-murder, I think, there is something very nasty going on."

Only hope of Right is to look inwards and be steadfast in its approach. The left comes for the Social media space, calls you Internet Hindu; do not yield this well-earned space. This space not only gives you voice, it also takes away the moral superior position the leftists grabbed for themselves with unforeseen sophistication of thoughts coming from the hitherto unknown Right. Engineers, Doctors, Chartered accountants are now exposing the mediocre scholarship of the leftist journalists, historians, academicians. The Right thrives on celebration of individual mind. Right recognizes society, but it revers individual spirit. 

Hinduism is much close to the Right. Hinduism in essence, is a private, inward-looking, soul-focussed religion. It is therefore anti-thesis of any empire-building, supremacist religion or philosophy. Any supremacist idea always thrives on destruction, of those who do not agree. That is what ISIS is. ISIS is an organization. Before anything becomes an organization, it is always a thought, an idea. It then takes various shapes and forms. Taliban, Lashkar, Wahabism, ISIS- it changes shapes and forms and it kills. Some call it un-Islamic. It is not fair. It rises out of inherent issues with Islam. Quran was written over a period. It begins with the time when the Prophet was young and isolated  individual with a new and revolutionary thought which threatened to obliterate old religion and tribal powers. Quran is about his journey from an unsure ideologue amid hostile detractors to a ruthless military general, building an empire of obedient followers. That is why Quran contradicts itself on various matters. 

Terrorists ignore what Mohammad wrote in his earlier life and build a case for terror and cruelty as means to win wars; apologists use quotes from earlier phase and try defend the terrorists. The Book cannot be questioned. Even liberals will not question it. They will throw one phrase against another, forgetting that until a phrase, not in line with civilized world is contradicted and expunged, you can only continue to hope that one part of the Book will be read and other will not. It is so obvious. When anyone points the issues with the intolerant and violent ideas in Quran, they will always point to the moderate sections (from early life of the Prophet). But they will not have courage to point out that the violent, intolerant parts of Quran are inconsistent with the modern, civilized world and are wrong. 

Anyways, that is another matter of larger significance,  and should be a subject of another debate. Right now, The conniving thievery of the Left is the question- The Left and the lies of the left. India in the term Indian-Muslims trouble s leftists. We have to defend that term. The left is about the idea which is foremost, beyond and above the national identity. That is why the concept of Ummah, the concept of Khilafat suits the left. Khilafat of Muslims is similar to Russian mother-ship of the past for the communists. It gives them a large force, a force whose inherent ideology is diametrically opposite to their idea of atheist existence, but committed, easily excitable and expendable. Sometimes a good acting is all that stands between existence and total decimation like dead leaves of the season gone. Muslims call it Taqiyyah, Communists call it realpolitik. It confounds Hindus for whom religion is Dharma- The Right Path, the moral. 

Matter of critical import for the current subject is that this unholy alliance of the two philosophy which threatens rightists in Indian subcontinent must be argued with. Left is desperate. They do not have with them logic and argument. So having a legal code which is impartial to any religion is communal to them, an effort towards re-distribution of wealth takes away the wind out of the mast of theit sinking ships. The Left is about state-control. The Right is about free spirit. The Right  is inward-looking faith. The Left has a standard game of creating outrage. They will try to bring out your worst and then hold you responsible for it. When wisdom is meager and the words are failing; violence, verbal and otherwise, jumps in. 

 Hindu right is about debate and a kinder pride, a pride in the soul and the mind. We need to regain that pride. Language and education are the bulwark of Hindu right. Be proud, be strong and be patient with those who thrive on your impatience. They will bring your worse out and make it an example to trample on your just annoyance. Stand for what we believe in and what we are. I will not say that opposition to cow-slaughter is ONLY for animal right or nature. That it is. But then that it is also because Hinduism is about animal rights and environment. Let us say that as Hindu we are offended when animals are slaughtered in public view. If you are my friend why would you want to offend me? Why would you want to trample, belittle my faith if you want to coexist with me in harmony? If this is a state I have built, by voting for it, why would it not defend me against deliberate offense. But I will not kill or bash people. That is not me. That is not a religion of spirit. That is not a religion of wisdom. That is a faith of fanaticism. We are much better than that. Let us assume that you mean it when you say you love me as brother; if you do, why aren't you concerned about offending my faith. Left- well, left, as I said, is desperate. Let us take away the fuel which they desperately need. Right is what stands between a world which is precariously tilted between individual and the absolutist scheme of a majoritarian collective. Leftists in India use the term majoritarianism frivolously. Let them not. If you want to look majoritarianism, look at Saudi, Syria and Pakistan. The resurgent Right of India stands in the middle of it. Left is scared of it. India of today is the last bastion of tolerant faith, true intellectual melting-pot of civilizations. This idea of India clashes with a global communist order, and it also stands against ever-growing and world-encompassing Jihadist Khilafat. The rightist idea of India discomforts the left. It also aligns with the idea of national identity. This worries and infuriates the left even further. Noted writer Samuel P Huntington wrote about leftist of the US, which is equally true of the Left in India:

"...(But) there is a problem with the this Left: It is unpatriotic. It repudiates the idea of a national identity and the emotion of a national pride."

Nationalistic pride is one of the defining feature of Right, but where we stand now, the implication of having a right-minded Rightist leader is beyond the implications of India as a nation. We stand at the verge where history could go both way. West also was striving for change, an opportunity to regain its poise. We are fortunate that we have a reasonable, rational and capable leadership, which is not whimsical or fanatic. US too could have given voice to a sane rightist mind. Unfortunately, we all have to live with the choices we make, and sometimes, it is merely chance which decides on the choices which are presented to us. We have thus been lucky. We must not take this responsibility lightly. Read, make your point and teach others. Celebrate our spiritual sagacity and strengthen our national mind, without anger and apology, with pride and prudence. As it says in Gita, in Sanskrit

"ना दैन्यं , ना पलायनम "
(Not to yield, not to surrender)


Popular posts from this blog

कायस्थ- इतिहास एवं वर्तमान परिपेक्ष्य

सत्यम , दानम , क्षमा शीलमानृशंस्य तपो घृणा। दृश्यंते यत्र नागेंद्र स ब्राह्मण इति स्मृतः।। ( हे सर्पराज , जिसमें सत्य , दानशीलता , क्षमा , क्रूरतारहित भाव , तप एवं संवरण , एवं संवेदना हो , वह मनुष्य को ही ब्राह्मण मानना चाहिए। ) शुद्रे तु यद् भवेल्लक्षम द्विजे तच्च न विद्दयते। न वै शूद्रों भवेच्छुद्रो ब्रह्मणो न च ब्राह्मण : ।। ( यदि शूद्र में यह गुण हैं ( सत्य , दान , अक्रोध , अहिंसा , तप , संवरण एवं संवेदना ) और ब्राह्मण में यह गुण परिलक्षित ना हों तो वह शूद्र शूद्र नहीं , ब्राह्मण है ; और वह ब्राह्मण ब्राह्मण नहीं है। )  - युधिष्ठिर - नहुष संवाद , अजगर कांड , महाभारत , वन पर्व   वर्तमान परिपेक्ष्य में जिसे जाति कहा जाता है , वह वर्ण व्यवस्था का विकृत रूप है। सनातन धर्म का वर्ण जहाँ समाज को व्यवसाय एवं क्षमता के अनुरूप व्यवस्थित करने का प्रयास था और कर्म पर आधारित था , जाति उसी व्यवस्था का विघटित रूप बन कर जन्मगत व्यवस्था बन गई। जाति या कास्ट पुर्तगाल

Pathaan and Polarisation- Movie Review

Many have not seen Pathan, I have. I have a huge tolerance towards stupid movies and I love to watch all sort of movies. What has bothered me most about Pathaan is that in terms of content and characterisation, it is absolutely shoddy, much worse than much lampooned RaOne AND there is no review which openly tells you about it.  Most reviewers have reviewed the movie like a teenager, gushing over VFX generated body of ShahRukh Khan. This reminds me of my schoolmates bunking classes to watch tomato-sauce-laced movies of Ramsey brothers, gushing over semi-nude voluptuous actresses in the late 80s. Only difference being that those were school kids in class XII, with raging hormones and a stupefied intellect when a world around them was fast changing. Here we have middle-aged professional movie reviewers guiding people to their way in or out of Movie theatres. Their primary argument in favour of the movie is nothing but beefed up Shahrukh Khan and the gap between his earlier movie and this

बाल विवाह - हिंदू इतिहास और सत्य

  इतिहास का लेखन उसकी विसंगतियों की अनुक्रमिका नहीं वरन उसके समाज के आम रूप से स्वीकृत मान्यताओं एवं उस समाज के जननायकों द्वारा स्थापित मानदंडों के आधार पर होना चाहिए। परंतु जब लेखनी उन हाथों में हो जिनका मंतव्य शोध नहीं एक समाज को लज्जित करना भर हो तो समस्या गहन हो जाती है। जब प्रबुद्ध लोग कलम उठाते हैं और इस उद्देश्य के साथ उठाते हैं कि अप्रासंगिक एवं सदर्भहीन तथ्यों के माध्यम से समाज की वर्ग विभाजक रेखाओं को पुष्ट कर सकें तो हमारा कर्तव्य होता है कि हम सत्य को संदर्भ दें और अपने इतिहास के भले बुरे पक्षों को निर्विकार भाव से जाँचें।   बीते सप्ताह बाल विवाह को लेकर विदेशी सभ्यता में उठे प्रश्नों को भारत की सभ्यता पर प्रक्षेपित करके और उसकी स्वीकार्यता स्थापित करने पर बड़ी चर्चा रही। इस संदर्भ में   श्री ए एल बाशम से ले कर राजा राम मोहन रॉय तक चर्चा चली। बाशम की पुस्तक द वंडर दैट वाज इंडिया - को उद्धृत कर ले कहा गया कि हिं