Intro : Mr Shekhar Gupta would appreciate that the constitutional guarantees are not absolute. His serendipity in sedition can only go this far as the key tenets of his sophistry get amply exposed in letter as well as spirit.
One of the suave vocal voices of Bharateeya liberality Shekhar Gupta, took the plunge of going through the Vijayadashami Speech of Dr Mohan Bhagwat. Defying serendipity, his prejudiced glasses could only discover a plethora of pernicious phrases & pointers from the masterpiece containing over 45 odd nuggets of wisdom.
Going through his weekender piece titled ‘A Nagpur Manifesto’ somewhere brought about the profound difference between scientific objective discourse which has to be backed by reason and has to fall into a contour of consistency. Politically prejudiced journalistic commentaries are meant to operate in a zero gravity environment, whereby the authenticity of going through a piece is not important. It’s the name which matters and it’s the coterie which celebrates anything which falls in its ambit of reasoning, howsoever naive or loquacious it might be.
Like a typical Search Engine Optimisation agent, they tend to fit in as many keywords as possible in these write-ups of theirs so as to force fit their ongoing narrative on the objective news items. Humanities they say, thereby rules the elements as its sauce of sophistry can deceive the human neurons, if not alert and present to the context.
Why shouldn’t the Vijayadashami Speech of the Sarsanghachalak be accorded a similar status as that of The State of the Union Address. Thankfully for Bharat, it’s not the Government of the Unfaithful, who have had been rejoicing their personal privileges at the expense of toiling millions.
Mr Gupta’s dressing sense might be having a contempt for the wide spread khaki knickers which the swayamsevaks find it quite convenient to undertake their morning Surya Namaskar. This might be for their want of expensive NIKE sports gear which the liberality puts on to burn their morning calories or for their excessive conscious sense to create easily accessible & affordable desi attire. At this juncture he is okay mocking at the simple, or simplistic attire, while on the other he leaves not a single chance to take a jibe at the mesmerising dressing sense of the swayamsevaks in command of the Government of Bharat. It’s really hard to comprehend as to what’s the point he is trying to make. Is the simplicity of the ‘ganvesh’ his cause of concern, or is the resplendence of attire of Prime Minister of Bharat, his taboo? Perhaps, in his worldview replete with theoretical pauperisation, such a contrast just doesn’t fit in. On the contrary, the Bharateeya Worldview is equal at ease with this natural gradient of choices & preferences.
This naivety thereby extends to other complex and advanced concepts as in appreciating the ideal of ‘Unity-in-Diversity’ which he proposes to simplify for a merely celebration of whopping diversity, a motif ridden with profound mischief aimed at ulterior motivations of fragmenting the Union of India which was so painstakingly unified by freedom fighters.
For the purpose of self-aggrandisement, these high priests of liberality secured in myriad ways would abuse their intellectual prowess to perpetrate ideas of extreme seditious nature and attempt to cover them up into some high-octane intellectual discourse which interestingly has to be protected by the state of the day as their absolute constitutional right of freedom of expression.
Out of the 45 odd points of deliberation which the Sarsanghchalak exhorted on the day of Vijayadashami, he could pick up only the one concerning the balancing of population with the natural resources of the country for a prosperous living.
If Mr Gupta’s celebration of diversity tantamount to an uneven state, then the rule of the law of the land would be hard to keep. Well, the aristocracy of the unfaithful liberality has never had enough regard to the law as it constituted the extended protectorate of the powers of the day. But could the same privilege be extended to a billion plus nation risking a profound civil war? If that’s his innate intent and objective as an agent of inducing chaos, it’s another matter altogether.
Mr Gupta couldn’t pick up any wisdom or value from the other pointers pertaining to the philosophical deficiencies of the global policy deck in advancing development and the due course corrections which have been made in due synchronisation with the age-old Bharateeya ethos, which the Sarsanghachalak chooses to call as Hindutva.
If I have a profound repository of civilisational wisdom, why should I be apologetic about accepting them in my individual, communal and national life? Practices & precepts which are aberrated or have served their utility are obvious choices for pruning, which a vigilant and self-conscious society undergoes through a constant process of self-purification. Does it need external apologetics and mischief mongers to intrude and convolute the entire process per se.
Hypocrisy has somewhere become the predominant pathogen of the unfaithful liberality, which has kept itself self-indulgent pursuing narratives which suit their existence. Intellectualism which is not delivering or liberating, which is not responsible to the welfare of the masses to which it's subjected at, is just an exercise in deceit and treachery.
From the age of roti & kaudi to that of twitter & television, the Bharateeya society had had its ways and means of sharing the dominant precepts of its civilisational ethos. An organisation of 90 year old standing with over 51000 units doesn’t need the alms of any media organisation to express itself. A simple factor of 10 makes them cover the entire length and breadth of the country. They constitute a Real Social Media in themselves. Fluttering over the live telecast of Sarsanghachalak’s Vijayadashami speech is thereby nothing but an obligation for the entire spectrum of media organisations. There would be alien forces which would not like this to happen. Exposing them and their sheer motives should thereby be an exercise deserving credentials in journalistic investigation.
What’s wrong with having an ideological underpinning which believes in the global superiority of Bharateeya culture, philosophy and science? If Bharateeya won’t be having this, is Mr Gupta expecting a Donald Trump to stand for it?
The sordid tales of European Imperialism have been documented by their very chroniclers, while the profound influence of Bharateeya Civilisation is still having its reverberations. The recently concluded Dharma-Dhamma Global Congrega-tion at Indore, brought about these closely knitted civilisational ties together rooted in a spiritualised world order envisioned by Rishis and Lamas alike.
Having a qualified phobia is a sign of wisdom and not weakness. As an individual, I should have the freedom to choose what I like and drop what I don't. The same holds true with organisations and nations. What’s wrong in picking up the best values & virtues from the Western World while dropping those facets which are either irrelevant or extraneous to Bharateeya Civilisational designs?
However, if you are hired for perpetrating a particular way of life for advancing the strategic goals of your masters, this is an extremely valid question from your stable? Creating a sense of contradiction whereby none exists, is a master stroke in sophistry.
The Kalam Standard of patriotism is probably shared by the vast majority of the minority community if not mollycoddled by the liberality which remains unfaithful to the Bharateeya nation. The intrinsic synthesis of the Bharateeya mind emanates such tactical accommodations and prevents an ISIS like happening in this vast sub-continent. Would Mr Gupta who in his vast journalistic experience has simply exposed fault-lines have any better idea to bridge them? Solution centric journalistic commentaries would have to be made the order of the day for evoking responsibility. If a poor policeman has to collect his bullet shells even after a ghastly encounter, shouldn’t a journalist of the repute of Mr Gupta advance a resolution as well, closer to his convictions, or else what value does his commentary has – a figment of imagination or an attempt to broaden the existing fault lines?
He has issues with the invocation of Ambedkar by a Sarsanghachalak as if a Benjamin Netanyahu is endorsing a Rami Hamdallah. The objective accounts of the alienation of a considerable mass of Bharateeya population into the Dalit fold are available across the board. How this very fault lines
has been a point of exploitation
for ages, is also duly documented. Sarsanghachalak’s call to unify the entire Bharateeya society can be a distress signal to the forces of disruption and disintegration.
It’s Dr Ambedkar’s Constitution only which mandated for a Right to Equality for all Bharateeya Citizens, which just cannot be interpreted differentially by making the Supreme Lords in Black Coats to embark upon a night-out on a hue and cry over an execution by an ever hyper liberality, proving its unfaithfulness to the Bharateeya Republic all over again. The Vijayadashami speech across its elaborate expanse, nowhere engages in a seditious serendipity.
It’s in the nature of nature that winds do flow from higher pressure areas to lower pressure ones. If Bharateeya have over the ages evolved an elaborate philosophical foundation and based its societal transactions on them and created a stupendous economy and polity, creating an integrating living experience, is this their fault? The brief era of disruption & subduing by imperialistic forces can’t take away the depth & reasoning of the Bharateeya Knowledge Systems. If these winds have chosen to flow to lower depression areas, what’s haunting or disturbing in this? Scoring a political point in the garb of a philosophical meandering is again a vicious attempt in intellectual skulduggery.
When Mr Gupta, couldn’t find enough sewer silt in the Vijayadashami speech, which presumable he didn’t even go through once or else he would have fallen in love with the ‘closure of ideas’ presented out there, he expanded his horizons to read the minds of Sarsanghachalak's ideologues who in his opinion can only make deeper cultural changes riding only on the state power. He just makes this assertion, without substantiating it with any tangible evidence. Again, a tactic deployed by his clan of liberality.
Going to the extreme of the argument, are these ideologues hard pressed for the oxygen of state power for bringing about a deeper cultural change within Bharat. They have been doing it all through. It’s just that, it's being used as a tool for tampering their tethers. These are lone crusaders championing their age-old civilisational convictions right from the age of the invading Alexander of Macedonia of the fabled Greece.
A Rajiv Malhotra didn’t have the signing authority from the Consolidated Fund of Bharat to create a formidable academic defence for the Bharateeya civilisation duly attacked by the triad of Marxist, Missionary and Muslim intellectual forces in the new age of intellectual imperialism.
The intellectual bankruptcy or the sinister brief being carried out by Mr Gupta gets amply exposed when he amusingly starts disputing the call for Common Laws and Common Policies as Majoritarian & Unsustainable and indirectly suggests them as unconstitutional. Is he looking for variants of IPC, CRPC, and the host of other laws promulgated by the Parliament? Is this the summum bonum of the liberality discourse to splinter India?
Mr Gupta might be going the Kejriwal way to pick up an argument with the Sarsanghachalak Ji, but I would like to invoke the night-out friendly Supreme Lords of my land to pay heed to this seditious serendipity of Mr Gupta suo moto being the sovereign guardians of the letter & spirit of Bharateeya Constitution.
Mr Shekhar Gupta would also appreciate that the constitutional guarantees are not absolute. His serendipity in sedition can only go this far as the key tenets of his sophistry get amply exposed in letter as well as spirit.
Raghav Mittal (The writer is M.Tech, IIT Kharagpur)
Comments