Dr Gautam Sen
Indian independence was not the watershed naively assumed to be. It was a significant political retreat for the British colonial power, but did not constitute total rout. The colonial authority left behind a venal, anti-national communist front it had comprehensively suborned through the agency of its wartime anti-Nazi alliance with the USSR. Its sole raison d’etre turns out to have been to harass and weaken the Indian State at the instigation of Anglo-American agencies. Indian communism eventually transmuted into grand larceny and criminal extortion, as it committed widespread real estate fraud and robbed public assets, akin to plunder by the Communist Party of China today. The communist leadership at the time of independence was also dominated by Calcutta Brahmos, many of whom harboured a deep-seated scepticism towards Hinduism, having imbibed both Islamic and Unitarian monotheism and abhorrence of idolatry. This subconscious hostility is evident in the tenacious defence of the Islamic conquest and plunder of India and the enslavement of its Hindus by its Brahmo Nobel laureate.The British facilitated the creation of Pakistan though that was easy enough since the landed Muslim elite of India was not about to live in a country run by Hindus. And they were certainly not going to live as their co-equals because of some anti-Islamic, Western claptrap about democracy. Pakistan quickly became the Anglo-American instrument for tormenting India, astutely described as NATO’s second Cold War by Iqbal Singh, a former editor of London’s India Weekly. Pakistan’s military dictatorships were pampered as prized assets beyond reproach and the thorough going Islamisation of the country in the 1980s welcomed as yet another fortuitous opportunity for mischief. Of course it has all gone horribly wrong, with the likelihood of infinitely worse to come since truculent Pakistani Islamists are both quite mad and foolhardy, cheerfully contemplating the erasure of their own civilisation provided they can take the Anglo-Americans with them. And the Sino-American nuclear arsenal gifted to Pakistan for terrorising India and its abominable pagans may have now found unintended targets. Evidently there is an Almighty and justice eventually prevails!After Indian independence, major elite schools and colleges in India remained under the tutelage of the Christian clergy and their insidious Indian Christian surrogates. They socialised generations of India’s elite to disdain their Hindu identity and embrace the interests of the very former Christian rulers who had tyrannised them. The strategic goal of taking over the Indian Anglo press to nourish the same pathetic Anglo elites with drivel to ensure they remained indoctrinated was achieved covertly. Virtually all English language newspapers and television channels now have links with the church and their co-conspirators in Western diplomatic missions in India. They are also largely staffed by products of Indian Christian schools and colleges and Anglo-American universities, who entertain ambiguous political loyalties. Indeed many journalists employed in them are a thoroughly compromised comprador presence in the Indian body politic, not infrequently on the payroll of Western intelligence agencies. This manifest clandestine Christian presence within India has turned out to be devastating for Hindus since its modus operandi of advancing by stealth has proved highly effective. The church has vast historical experience facilitating imperial expansion on behalf of Western states, to the accompaniment of genocide and slavery, since the time of the Emperor Constantine, but the two institutions are not synonymous. Indeed there are areas of tension between them on social issues that impinge on religious doctrine and the perceived interests of the church. But Christianity and the Western imperial system have unwaveringly shared the common goal of world domination for millennia, dutifully giving mutual sustenance to each other when it really matters. One decisive reason for the success of Christian imperialism is the ability to sponsor committed evangelists, which entails using the deep-seated religious yearnings of individuals for their own dastardly imperial purposes. Many of these evangelists adhere to high standards of personal moral conduct and also genuinely believe they are doing the work of the Saviour by purportedly uplifting the weak and poor by providing medical aid, education and employment opportunities, etc. The provision of medical help is one of the most crucial factors in facilitating religious conversion since it constitutes a form of ‘giving of life’ and creates an irresistible motive to adopt the faith of those offering such succour. It becomes the unfailing prelude to eventual religious conversion that also ends in a call to arms, as with Baptist Nagaland and Mizoram in India. The Naga and Mizo Baptist church website proudly proclaims its mission as one to defend the faith, amounting to exactly such a call to arms, as well as evangelize beyond their own regional borders. The Baptists managed to estrange both communities totally from their traditional, Hindu animist moorings and implant profound unease with all things connected to it among the Nagas and Mizos.The tried and tested techniques adopted by Christian institutions and their imperialist collaborators, Western States, with convergent goals, are manifold. The first has always been to exploit local fault lines and divisions and accentuate them at every juncture in order to devise entry points and identify traitors who will facilitate deeper assault. Exploiting local divisions among the people they encountered in Asia, the Americas and Africa was the basis for the initial 16th century European conquests since their relative military strength was never overwhelming. The weakening of the dominant indigenous authority in place and rendering it dysfunctional, with the assistance of local surrogates, is the unfailing paramount preliminary goal of foreign intervention. In the contemporary period, the excuses for intervention that precipitates political chaos can range from travails of alleged class struggles, using native Leftists in countries like India as dupes or collaborators, and the incidence of ethnic and religious strife. In recent decades, audacious direct military assault has been justified by resort to the supposed necessity of humanitarian intervention and complete falsehoods about the existence of weapons of mass destruction. It has resulted in extraordinarily destructive, blood-soaked interventions within tribal and schismatic Sunni and Shia communities of Middle Eastern Islam. In addition, cynical targeted killings by Western intelligence agencies have precipitated veritable civil wars across the entire region. But in India Islam has always been an ally of Christian imperialism because, jointly, they can keep Hindu India off balance while their nefarious campaigns unfold. In the particular case of India itself, the whole issue of caste, though a pre-existing phenomenon and an internal frailty vulnerable to manipulation, was recast by the British colonial power to divide its people. The historic fluidity of caste relations was gradually replaced by harder, more self-conscious boundaries in the late 19th century that would come to haunt Hindu civilisation. And the idea of an upper caste monster and seeds of virulent racial hatreds were implanted by the highly creative use of Censuses. And in subsequent decades the colonial power pounced to take advantage, arguing the Indian disadvantaged, whom they themselves had exploited ruthlessly earlier, needed their protection, as the Indian independence movement gathered momentum. The church sponsored the south Indian obsession with the spurious theory of an Aryan conquest of their region and all the evidence to refute this fabrication cannot apparently dislodge the conviction. It has also acquired potent electoral utility, altering the course history of Indian political and social life permanently.The laughable antics of Indian communism about class oppression, allegedly refracted through caste, were always a mere appendage to this larger imperialist conspiracy with which they had become treasonously complicit. The depth of the sheer venality and corruption of the Indian Left stands thoroughly exposed as they flock to Western faculties in New York, Chicago, Cambridge, London and Oxbridge and engage in shameless spectacles on behalf of church and Western empire with obscene hand-wringing about India’s minorities and their human rights. The size of their salaries and the square footage of their salubrious homes abroad expose the truth about their sordid motives in auctioning their proverbial grand mother to the highest bidder.In addition, the church engages in outright bribery of politicians, government officials and journalists and blackmail. Bribery is targeted towards useful individuals and this includes outwardly innocuous tactics like arranging scholarships for their children to study abroad and the possibility of a Green Card for permanent residence in the case of the US. In India, a high proportion of politicians and bureaucrats are also vulnerable to blackmail and pressure because they have engaged in sexually compromising behaviour and other criminal acts. Foreign intelligence agencies and the church share such information to elicit their compliance and support for legislative acts. This is the likely reason for the rather puzzling reversal of restrictions on religious conversion in Tamil Nadu and the unusual attentiveness of the politician who did so to concerns of the church ever since.
At present, a fierce debate is raging in the media, as to who is secular. The two extreme points are represented by two Chief Ministers of our country. One is the Chief Minister of Bihar Shri Nitish Kumar and the other is Shri Narendra Modi Chief Minister of Gujarat.Charvaka and MarxAccording to me, the whole debate is uncalled for, because no individual is secular, unless he is an atheist. Ancient Charvaka and modern Karl Marx, may be cited as two prominent examples of secular human beings. Secular means, “of or pertaining to this-worldly things; not related to the other-worldly things, or any religion or spirituality or any superhuman power like ‘parmatma’, or God or Allah. Charvaka is a typical example of a secular being. He said, “As long as you are alive enjoy your life. You can incur heavy debt, but lead a lavish life. Is your body, once burnt on the pyre, going to come back? His exact words are -Yavat jeevam sukham jeevet.Rinam kritva ghritam pibet.Bhasmeetbhootasya dehasya.punaragamanam kutah.Marx too called religion as opium. But a vast majority of people believes in the existense of God, spirituality and the other-worldy entities like heaven and hell.Are these people secular?Can Sonia Gandhi be called a secular person? She is a Roman Catholic. I don’t know whether she regularly attends Church service or not. But I remember that once at the time of a Kumbha-mela, she had taken a holy bath at the sacred confluence of the rivers Ganga and Yamuna. Also, she had been to a temple in Gujarat when she was on an election tour in that state. Can the Chief Ministers of Maharashtra from high profile Sharad Pawar to the present lacklustre Prithviraj Chavan be called secular persons, when on every yearly Ashadh-ekadashi (the eleventh day of the bright fortnight of the fourth month of the Hindu calender) they religiously perform the “Pooja” of Lord Vitthal at Pandharpur. Or for that matter Lalu Prasad Yadav, the so called quintessence of secularism, be called secular, when he takes interest in the ‘Chchat Pooja.’ What I want to emphasise is that only a person like Charvaka or Marx can be secular. Most of us are non-secular.The State has to be SecularThen what is secular? A political system can be secular. A State can be secular. I even emphatically assert that the State has to be secular. A non-secular or a theocratic state is a perversity, a contradiction in terms. In India this has been the case from ancient times. We have not borrowed that concept from the British. Even Shivaji’s rule was secular. In the seventh century king Harshwardhan’s rule was secular. He himself being a Sanatani Vedic Hindu, honoured saints of the Jain and the Buddhist saints also. Just consider why India is a secular state and not Pakistan or Bangladesh, though, they, too, were parts of the united India under the British rule. The reason is, India could proclaim itself a secular state, because Hindus are in a majority here. We did not became a secular state after 1976 when Smt. Indira Gandhi unnecessarily pierced the word ‘secular’ in the Preamble of our Constitution. The state was secular from the very day, it formally came into existence. Look at the words of Art. 14 and 15 of our Constitution. Article 14 says “The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the protection of laws within the territory of India.” The Art. 15 gives the specifies when it declares “The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on the grounds of only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them.” The 42nd amendment if it is not redundant, only reiterates what was obvious. A secular state to the Hindus is as natural as to a man to have two legs. There can be a human being with only one leg, but that is either the result of some accident or perversity of nature. In the Hindu political ideology the state has to be secular, because its functions are limited to this-worldly affairs.Evolution of European PolityThe advent of the world secular in European polity is due to its special historical evolution. In Europe, till the 16th century, both the spiritual and the temporal power was concentrated in one person i. e. the Pope or the Church of which he was the supremo. Many rulers resented this system. King Henry VIII of England (1509-1547) was the first to rebel against papal power. He severed his State’s connection with that Church, established his own Church and became its ‘defender of the faith.’ The others followed and stated that their State is secular i. e. free from Church-domination. But even now, no Catholic can become a King or a Queen of England. One incumbant to the throne of England married a Catholic woman and he was debarred from assuming the titular headship of that country. USA asserts that it is a secular state and really it is so. But in its history of about two and a half centuries, only once did a Roman Catholic become its President. And even he could not run the full term of four years. He was assassinated within three years. Since then no Catholic dared to contest the Presidential election. And yet Catholics constitute 24 per cent of the USA’s total population. In Hindu majority India, in a span of about six decades, we had three Muslim Presidents.Nitish EpisodeNow about the Nitish episode. Why did Nitish raise the issue of the Prime Minister of India, just now? The LS elections are two years away. Next month we have an election for Presidentship. Then follows Gujarat state assembly election. Then in 2013, we have assembly elections in several states like Delhi, Rajasthan, MP, Chhattisgarh, Karnataka etc. Then will follow the LS elections in 2014. Why is Nitish in such a haste? If he wants to severe his party’s ties with the NDA, he can do it, any time. Even now, his party has chalked out a different path for the Presidential poll. If he entertains an ambition to became the next PM, he is free to aspire for it. He is also free to amuse himself with his personal opinion about Narendra Modi. But what is the meaning of pressurising BJP to declare its PM candidate? And why should BJP oblige him? The relevent polls are two years ahead. If Nitish can proclaim and propagate for a secular PM, what harm is their for the Sarsanghchalak of RSS to say that the next PM can be a devotee of Hindutva. He will surely guarantee that his state-craft will be genuinely secular and not like the one that is practised today—a practice that makes a distinction between one religion and the other.Look at a few examples of the practice of pseudo-secularism that is rampant in our country. The Supreme Court, granted alimony to a Muslim divorcee woman. This was in accordance with the Art. 125 of Indian Penal Code. But the Congress government of Rajiv Gandhi, to appease the orthodox Muslim mind, amended the Constitution to nullify the verdict of the highest court of justice. Is this secularism? Though it is directed by our Constitution to enact a Common Civil Law for all citizens nothing is done in that direction. Can it be called practising secularism? And the recent shameless attempt to give 4.5 per cent reservation to the Muslims from the OBC quota. Should this be lauded as secular statecraft? To vaunt a polity that makes difference between religions as secular and to insult those that propound that no discrimination be made on the basis of religion, calling them communal, is nothing short of intellectual adultery.