S. Gurumurthy 
At the centre of Western intellectual discourse is the concept of “Political correctness”. Political correctness means “conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities should be eliminated”. (2) At the centre of “political correctness” is the view that “Western civilisation is inherently unfair to minorities, women and homosexuals” (3) Political correctness is founded guilty conscience. “Political Correctness” also illustrates the tendency of Western intellectual elites to distance themselves from society and culture in which they were born and raised “by denouncing reigning traditions and by taking sides with marginalised groups.” (4)
So, the effect is double whammy. One, to disown, even denounce, one’s own culture and traditions; and two, feel eternally guilty for being unfair to minorities. Is this not enough to destroy a civilisation? How such double whammy effect is threatening to lead the world to World War III is brilliantly captured in his latest essay (Sept 18, 2012) titled “Multicultural Defenders of) Monocultural Islam” by Paul Weston, Chairman of the British Freedom Party. He says, “Multiculturalism sits at the pinnacle of Political Correctness (another expression invented in the later 20th century) and is promoted in the post-Christian West with a religious fervour.” (4) Weston postulates not just clashes between Islam and Christian – or post-Christian – West, but War between them. He writes:
This peculiar attitude has been adopted by our ruling classes who are obsessed with atoning for the perceived sins of historical oppression carried out in the name of Christianity and the colonisation of non-white countries. The West now finds itself in the position where multiculturalism is the driving ideology behind pretty much everything — the law, education, employment and correct thinking. Those who do not think correctly are called racists, the ultimate heretical sin in PC (Politically Correct) terms.
So where does Islam fit into the liberal/left’s brave new PC world of non-prejudice, non-discrimination, tolerance for the “other” and respect for all races and religions? Is it unreasonable to suggest the core tenets of Islam’s political/religious ideology make it intractably and unarguably impossible for Islam to peacefully adapt to life in multicultural societies?
The answer to this question represents the most important issue of the 21st century. If Islam is capable of living alongside Christians, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, atheists, feminists, homosexuals, adulterers, beer-drinkers, short-skirted women, admirers of free speech and democracy, and perhaps even Justin Bieber, then the West is capable of living in peace as it has done so for close to the last seventy years.
If, on the other hand, all the above areimpossible for Islam to peacefully co-exist alongside, then the multicultural West is heading for the showdown of all showdowns with monocultural Islam. Given the huge demographic growth of Islam within the West and the 1.6 billion Muslims without the West, such a showdown has the potential to cause World War III:
Weston makes five poignant points. One, monocultural Islam cannot accept multiculturalism. Two, it cannot tolerate or respect other religions. Three, Islam cannot co-exist with multicultural societies. Four, multiculturalism promotes Islam which is intolerant of itslef. Five, it has the potential to cause World War III. This sums up the incubating civilisational clash between Islam and the West. This dangerous prospect is forcing some nations of the West, like Netherlands, to discard multiculturalism itself. Surprisingly, they are doing precisely what Guruji had counselled the Hindu India decades back.
Dutch New Integration Bill 2012 and Guruji on national integration
An essay in American Thinker (Oct 17, 2012) says that Netherlands, one of the most socially liberal societies on earth, is reversing its politically correct multiculturalism. [5] It discusses the Dutch Interior Minister Piet Hein Donner’s introductory letter and 15-page action plan while presenting New Integration Bill to Dutch Parliament. The Dutch Minister openly expresses dissatisfaction with multiculturalism and specifically mentions Muslims by name and expressly shifts the onus on them to integrate. The theory behind new trend in Netherlands to integrate the Muslims with the Dutch society is in substance the same on which Guruji had argued for the integration of Muslims with the mother Hindu society – the only difference being that in Netherlands the effort now is to integrate Muslim immigrants with the native Dutch people, while in India the effort of Guruji was to recall the historical, social, cultural and ancestral umbilical link of the Muslims with the mother Hindu society. In essence what the Interior Minister of Netherlands has told the Dutch Parliament as the basis to integrate the Muslims into the Dutch society is the same as Guruji’s principle of integrating the Muslims with the Hindu society. The Dutch Minister says that sharing the social dissatisfaction over the “multicultural society model” the government “steps away from the model of multicultural society” and plans “to shift priority to the values of the Dutch people”; and in the new integration system, “the values of the Dutch people play a central role.” (6) This is precisely what Guruji had mentioned when he said that the way of life of the Hindu society should and would play the central or basic role in India and the minorities must assimilate and be one with the national current. He said that Muslims in India have “disowned their ancestors, their languages, customs and all such elements of national heritage” and he contrasted this with Turkey, Iran and Indonesia where Islam spread from Arabia, but “the local people there adopted the Islamic creed but retained their culture and language and way of life.”(7)
Guruji was unambiguous in his concept of assimilation which makes a demand on the minorities obligatorily to integrate. He said: “We should make it clear that the non-Hindu (read minority) who lives here has a rashtra dharma(national responsibility), a samaja dharma (duty to society), a kula dharma (duty to ancestors), and only in his vyakti dharma (personal faith) he can choose any path which satisfies his spiritual urge. If, even after fulfilling all those various duties in social life, anybody says that he has studied Quran Sherif or the Bible and that way of worship strikes a sympathetic chord in his heart, that he can pray better through that path of devotion, we have absolutely no objection. Thus he has choice in a portion of his individual life. For the rest, he must be one with the national current. That is real assimilation.” (8) It is indeed stated in strong language. What the Dutch Minister is saying and the new Integration law of Dutch Parliament are equally as strong. The Dutch government insists that Netherlands must make demands on the minorities to conform to the national society. It says: “The new integration policy will place more demands on immigrants.. to learn the Dutch language and the government will take a tougher approach to immigrants to ignore Dutch values or disobey Dutch law.” It declares that there is obligation on the part of the minorities to integrate as “otherwise the society gradually grows apart and eventually no one feels at home anymore in the Netherlandss”.(9). It further insists that national “integration will not be tailored to different groups.” (10) which in substance means that the different groups cannot be appeased. Is this again not precisely what Guruji had said repeatedly? Guruji had time and again warned that “appeasement whets appetite”. He had said emphatically, “It is detrimental to national life to adopt the policy of appeasement of such groups by meeting their anti-national demands, to indulge in bargaining with them for temporary ends, and, with a view to appeasing them, cause harm to points of national pride and honour and national interests and beliefs.” (11) The Dutch government goes on to assert: The government will also stop offering special subsidies for Muslim immigrants because “it is not the government’s job to integrate immigrants.” (12) The Dutch government is clear in that the minorities have to assimilate obligatorily, as a matter of duty. There should be no government incentive to assimilate. In every way the Dutch Government and Parliament are only stating in different language and doing what Guruji had said decades ago in India. Yet, on the basis of the very principles which have damaged national societies like the the Dutch society, Guruji’s thoughts on integrating the minorities with the mainstream Hindu society was derided as communal and fascist.(13)
The American Thinker essay, which had analysed the Dutch government discarding both political correctness and multiculturalism, says: “It looks as though common sense is triumphing in one of the nations which led the western world down the path of political correctness. It is hard to overstate the potential importance of this development for societies elsewhere, including the United States.” (14) Shockingly, Netherlands was one of the first European nations to adopt multiculturalism in early 1980s (15). It is now among the first to discard it too. So, what Guruji, the seer, could foresee as the fall out of compromising on national core culture and appeasement of minorities, Western thinkers could not. Consequence, the West is undergoing deadly consequences of its tryst with cultural mess in the name of multiculturalism.
References:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/politically%20correct
Ideas & trends: The rising hegemony of the politically correct by Richard Bernstein: http://www.nytimes.com/1990/10/28/weekinreview/ideas-trends-the-rising-hegemony-of-the-politically-correct.html? pagewanted=all
Geser Hans: Political Correctness: mental disorder, childish fad or advance of human civilization? In: Sociology in Switzerland. Online Publikationen. Zuerich, Jan. 2008. http://socio.ch/general/pc.htm
Multicultural Defenders of Monocultural Islam by Paul Weston http://gatesofvienna. blogspot.in/2012/09/multicultural-defenders-of-monocultural.html
American Thinker June 25, 2011:http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/06/Netherlandss_ abandoning_multicu lturalism.html
Ibid
Bunch of Thoughts Chapter 25 [2] Meeting the challenge]
Bunch of Thoughts Chapter XI For a Virile National Life]
Ibid 5
Ibid 5
Bunch of Thoughts [1980] Chapter XII territorial nationalism]
Ibid 5
Political Ideas of M.S. Golwalkar: Hindutva, Nationalism, Secularism By Ritu Kohli Deep and Deep Publications p9091books.google.co.in/books isbn=8171005667.
Ibid 5
Saskia R.G. Schalk-Soekar, Fons J.R. van de Vijver and Mariëtte Hoogsteder (November 2004). “Attitudes toward multiculturalism of immigrants and majority members in the Netherlands”. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 28 (6): 533–550. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiculturalism_in_the_Nethe rlands#cite_note-SSVH-2
