Thursday, 22 October 2015

Nehruvians / Leftist "Secular-Liberals": Their Shallowness & Lamentable Lack of Integrity

Nehruvians / Leftist "Secular-Liberals"

Their Shallowness & Lamentable Lack of Integrity 

“Of all ignorance, the ignorance of the educated is the most dangerous. Not only are educated people likely to have more influence, they are the last people to suspect that they don't know what they are talking about when they go outside their narrow fields… "

"...the vast majority of intellectuals don’t really originate any ideas, but they peddle ideas that other people have originated.  And that gives them a great deal of freedom, because ideas are so malleable. Words are so malleable.  Reality is not malleable.  And so, they can believe in all sorts of things which have no realistic possibility, and which are fatal time and again in history. But because they know how to rephrase it and repackage it, they can just keep right on going… "

"Some of the biggest cases of mistaken identity are among intellectuals who have trouble remembering that they are not God.”

—Thomas Sowell

The more you hear or read the statements of the Sahitya Academy Awards returnees, the harangues of the anchors on TV, the comments of the commentariat on the MSM, the headlines in print-media, the challenging tweets of a section of the twitterati the more you wonder at the quality of the intellectual discourse in India. Often, it’s not an intellectual discourse, but an agenda-driven political discourse. It comprises less of facts, past history, experience of other regions and countries, telling examples, cause and effect, in-depth analysis, convincing arguments, well-founded conclusions, and illuminating way forward. Instead, it is more of highlighting selective facts, or distorting facts, or economising on facts, sweeping generalisations, unfounded theories, innuendoes, name-calling, labelling, type-casting, grandstanding, and rubbishing or elevating something or somebody. What is worse is the dishonesty! Subtle dishonesty to extreme cases of brazen, shameless dishonesty. Driven by some selfish agenda, commercial purpose or grouse.

We would take up the defining attributes of this class of (Nehruvian Leftist "Secular-Liberals") intellectuals who dominate MSM, academia, Sarkari or Sarkari-sponsored institutions, and so on. But, first let us briefly look at a few recent cases.

Dadri Case

Take the case of Dadri beef-lynching. On the night of 28 September 2015 in Bisara village near Dadri, Uttar Pradesh, a mob of people attacked a Muslim family, and killed 52-year-old Mohammad Akhlaq Saifi (Ikhlaq) and seriously injured his son, 22-year-old Danish, on suspicion of killing of a cow, and consumption of its meat.

It is obviously a condemnable, unlawful act deserving of harshest punishment. Even assuming the rumours were correct (which does not appear to be the case), the mob had no business to take the law into their hands: they should have complained to the police, if they had an issue.

Who should be taken to task? Those involved in the actual crime. Those responsible for rumours and for vitiating the atmosphere that led to the heinous act. The local UP police and administration which failed to nip the problem in the bud, even though the atmosphere was being vitiated over the last few days before the happening of the actual incident.

Besides the above, those who have since been milking the incident for their own agenda also need to be shown their place. You can’t be allowed to whip up wider disaffection. Such groups must be taken to task.
On the other hand, you can’t blame or slam those who cannot legitimately be blamed for it. How is the PM Modi responsible? Law and order is a state subject. The responsibility clearly lies with the UP government headed by the Samajwadi Party. How can the PM be made answerable for a law and order incident that happens in a state? And, if so, there have been scores of as heinous or worse incidents that have happened in West Bengal, Kerala, and several other states over the past 16 months. Why not blame Modi for them too? Why blame for this alone?

Did anyone in the Central government defend the incident? No. Everyone, from the HM to FM to others, has condemned it in strongest terms. President Mukherjee also condemned it. But, why did Modi not condemn it? Well, he did—quite unambiguously. But, why so late? That’s true. He should have done it earlier.

But, can that be reason enough to pan Modi and the Central government. It can be an excuse to condemn him, but not reason enough. Far worse things have happened on numerous occasions during the reign of Nehru, Indira, Rajiv and Manmohan Singh. Why was there no similar condemnation. There were far more compelling reasons earlier to return the awards. Why that never happened?

A well-known anti-cow slaughter activist was attacked and beaten by a Muslim mob in October 2014 in Bangalore (in Congress-ruled Karnataka) for merely distributing his book arguing against cow slaughter. Was there an outrage? Recently, an anti-cow slaughter activist Prashanth Poojary was hacked to death in Moodbidri in Mangaluru on 9 October 2015 by a gang of six Muslims. The eyewitness was also killed later. Initially, the case was ignored by the MSM and the English TV channels, but when there was a furore in the social media, the TV channels were left with no alternative but to show it on TV. So much for the partisan, agenda-driven coverage of the major section of the MSM and TV!

A group of female Muslim activists from PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) requesting vegan Eid were threatened with stoning and stripping by a mob of Muslim men in September 2014 in Bhopal. Was there an outrage?

Kalburgi Case

This is a law and order matter of the state of Karnataka ruled by the Congress. How can Modi and the Central government be held accountable?

Further, both the Kalburgi case and the Dadri case are under investigation by the respective (non-Congress) state governments. Is the Modi government trying to shield the possible culprits. No! They have no say or jurisdiction. Is there even an informal attempt to save specific groups or individuals? There is NO such allegation even! Then, on what rational or factual grounds are the awards being returned or Modi being panned?

Incidentally, Dabholkar was murdered in 2013 when the Congress was in power both at the State and at the Centre. Why was there no outrage against the Congress then?

Growing intolerance? Freedom-of-Expression situation worse?

There is now a bandwagon effect: the whole cabal is being encouraged and prodded to protest and return awards. Reportedly, Salman Rushdie and Amitav Ghosh have also joined them condemning restriction on freedom of expression. Have Rushdie or Ghosh cared to ascertain the truth? Day-in and day-out these groups have been freely (and without any valid reason) panning Modi and his government on MSM and TV—no holds barred—without any repercussions whatsoever! And, yet copycat Rushdie and Ghosh join them in condemning restriction on freedom of expression. Let them give at least one specific instance of the Modi-government having curbed the freedom of expression.

Such protests could have been legitimate during the reign of Nehru, Indira, Rajiv and Sonia-Rahul-MMS, when these very people maintained stony silence! What was the stand of these people during the Emergency?

Is the communal situation worse?

The communal position in the BJP-ruled states seems to be relatively much better. There appear to be relatively more communal incidents in non-BJP ruled states like UP, Bihar, Assam, West Bengal, Kerala and Karnataka. Communal incidents are not only what Hindus do to Muslims, they are also what Muslims or Christians do to Hindus.

There have been numerous terrible communal incidents during the Congress rule at the Centre. Here are some of the major ones: 2013 Muzzafarnagar riots, 2013 Canning riots in WB, 2012 Assam violence, 2008 Tumudibandh massacre in Odisha, 2006 Doda massacre, long-running riots in Gujarat prior to 2002, 1989 Bhagalpur riots, 1984 anti-Sikh attacks, 1983 Nellie massacre, 1980 Mandai massacre of Tripura, 1980 Muradabad riots, and so on. One would like to be enlightened on the stand taken by these intellectuals on the incidents.

What of These Much-Worse Incidents/Situations?

It’s good to see writers becoming such activists in the interest of the freedom of speech and tolerance so precious for all of us. However, why such sudden, belated waking up? There have been many, many more, and much, much worse incidents in the past. What had been the stand of various persons in this group in respect of those incidents? Let us list just a few from that very long list:
There have been numerous terrible communal incidents during the Congress rule at the Centre. Here are some of the major ones: 2013 Muzzafarnagar riots, 2013 Canning riots in WB, 2012 Assam violence, 2008 Tumudibandh massacre in Odisha, 2006 Doda massacre, long-running riots in Gujarat prior to 2002, 1989 Bhagalpur riots, 1984 anti-Sikh attacks, 1983 Nellie massacre, 1980 Mandai massacre of Tripura, 1980 Muradabad riots, and so on.
Communists vs. “freedom of expression”
How does their demand for “freedom of expression” fit-in when many of them are supporters of dictatorial, anti-democratic organisations like Maoists and Naxalites. Since when did communists started worrying about “freedom of expression”?

Intellectual freedom is a function of the free market. As Ayn Rand said: “Intellectual freedom cannot exist without political freedom; political freedom cannot exist without economic freedom; a free mind and a free market are corollaries.”

Taslima Nasrin Case
People like these and those whom they support or sympathise with hounded out the brilliant outspoken writer Taslima Nasrin from West Bengal in 2007. Incident much worse than face-blackening of Sudhindra Kulkarni was perpetrated on her in Hyderabad by the Muslim organisation AIMIM. Fatwas to eliminate her were issued. Even the Central Government under the Congress behaved in the most cruel and unbecoming fashion with the poor lady, who had no one to protect her; forcing her ultimately to move to Sweden in 2008.

Where were these freedom-of-expression-wallas when all this had been happening over the years? Not one of them either protested or returned the award! Hypocrisy, opportunism and grandstanding seem to know no bounds.
Terror Attacks
26/11 terror attacks that showed total lack of preparedness by the Congress at the State and the Central level, and grossly poor response that prolonged the period of attack and resulted in increased casualty and loss of property. Not just that—no accountability of those responsible, no proper punishment! Did you protest? Similar position in numerous other terror attacks.

— Sanjay Gandhi’s bestial sterilisation drive.
Bhopal Gas Tragedy of December 1984 resulting in thousands of deaths and injuries.
The Congress state government under Arjun Singh and the Congress central government under Rajiv Gandhi surprisingly facilitated the escape of the one of the culprits, Warren Anderson of Union Carbide. Did they protest?

What was even more amazing, and beyond all bounds of sensitivity (particularly for a poet), was the organisation of World Poetry Festival in Bhopal in December 1984 after the Gas Tragedy by their colleague and award-returnee, the poet from MP and a culture bureaucrat Ashok Vajpeyi! ( Uday Prakash, another of your colleague, Hindi poet and short story writer, considers Vajpeyi unworthy of the two awards given to him, and calls him a “power broker” disguised as a poet. “Nobody takes Vajpeyi seriously in Hindi literature. History will remember him as a culture czar who doled out patronage,” says Prakash.

— Rajiv Gandhi's regressive stand in Shah Bano Case.
Massive Corruption Cases during Nehru/Indira/Rajiv/Sonia-Rahul-MMS period
Multiple mega corruptions and open loot during UPA-I and II of a poor country of hungry millions. Didn’t it prick the conscience of these poets and writers and artists? Did they protest?

Reduction of Democracy into Corrupt Dynacracy (Dynastic Democracy)
Shameless continuance of the Dynasty rule, so detrimental for the Congress and the country. Has the group ever raised its voice against it?

— Brutal chopping off of hands at the wrist of TJ Joseph, a professor in Kerala, by  members of Popular Front of India, a radical Muslim fanatic organisation in 2010.

— Nirbhaya case.

Cow-Slaughter & Beef-Ban

As for beef-ban and such matters, The Indian Express, Mumbai of 8 October 2015 ( clarifies the position state-wise. In all states, except West Bengal, Kerala and some North-Eastern states, there has largely been a ban on cow-slaughter or consumption of beef since last many years. There is little new that the Modi or the BJP state governments have done.

Told senior Congress leader Digvijaya Singh: “I am surprised the BJP does not know that out of the 29 states, cow slaughter is banned in 24 states. And in most of these states, the prohibition was imposed by Congress governments. The Congress Working Committee had passed a resolution in the 1930s seeking a ban on cow slaughter. There was a ban on cow slaughter during Mughal rule. In the Bhopal riyasat of the Nawab, there was a ban on cow slaughter.”

On the claim that India is the “largest beef-exporting country”, and the challenge of the UP Chief Minister Akhilesh Yadav daring the Central government to end beef-exports, the Union Minister of Commerce Nirmala Sitharaman has clarified that the export of beef (meat of cow, oxen and calf) is already prohibited, and that only boneless meat of buffalo, male and female (not beef) and meat of goat and sheep is permitted to be exported. Many who claim to be eating beef may actually be eating buffalo meat. On states stipulating bans and dictating people's dietary preferences Digvijaya Singh of the Congress said: “First of all, there should be a debate on the definition of beef. Is buffalo meat beef? Then, every section should be consulted as sentiments of a particular community are involved.”

Would it not be more fruitful for the award-returnees and a section of the MSM and intellectuals to relentlessly pursue the matter with the UP and the Karnataka governments to ensure the culprits are brought to book? But, have they done anything of the sort? No. What then would any reasonable person conclude? There is a section which is influential, articulate and inventive enough to deflect all blame and responsibilities onto the Modi government, irrespective of the source or cause of the issues.

Over the last month, one also witnessed certain senior journalists, media personalities and intellectuals aggressively advertising their beef-eating and “dripping blood” meat-eating preferences. Among the provocative tweets was: “I just ate beef. Come and murder me.” That amounts to incitement! To what pathetic standards have these “secular-liberals” have fallen!! If cow-slaughter or beef-eating is forbidden by law in a state, would you incite the public to break the law? You are, of course, free to carry out a peaceful agitation to change the law. But, these “secular-liberals” are in competition to prove their “liberal”-“secular” credentials by being as abusive as possible towards the Hindu sentiments, and be as favourable as possible towards those of the Muslims. It’s another matter that a large number of Muslims themselves may not subscribe to their nonsense! This group behaved in a similar disgraceful and obnoxious manner with regard to ban of a few days on slaughter/sale of meat keeping the feelings of Jains (the most compassionate, peaceful and least-demanding group of India, which has contributed tremendously to India’s growth) in mind. No wonder this cabal is referred derisively as “Sickulars” and “Fiberals” meaning fake-Seculars and fake-Liberals.

A liberal state should not direct or dictate what one should or should not eat. But, gone are the days when westernised, colonially-minded Indians were dismissive of everything Indian and Hindu, and used to contemptuously refer to vegetarians as “ghas-foos” eaters. A growing number of persons are turning vegetarians and vegans out of their concern for personal health, environment and compassion for animals.

“Nothing will benefit human health and increase the chances for survival of life on Earth, as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet.”
-- Albert Einstein:

“I've been a vegetarian for years and years. I'm not judgemental about others who aren't, I just feel I cannot eat or wear creatures who once lived.”
-- Drew Barrymore

“If slaughterhouses had glass walls, everyone would be a vegetarian.”
-- Paul McCartney

One may remain non-vegetarian, but would one aggressively show off being one in such crude terms as demonstrated recently by a section of Indian journalists and intellectuals?

Attributes of the Dominant
(Nehruvian / Leftist "Secular-Liberal")
Intellectual Class

Who are these people? What sort of intellectuals are they? If one tries to discover some commonalities one finds that they do answer to one or more of the following descriptions:

It has been said that “Intellectuals tend to have uneasy relationship with the status quo.” However, the class we are focusing on are those who have become uncomfortable with the change in status quo. They feel comfortable only when cocooned in their good, old “secular”, socialistic, I-scratch-your-back-you-scratch-mine, mutually beneficial, quid pro quo milieu.


They are light pink to deep red communists, Marxists or socialists, or some sort of leftists. They find ways to defend Maoists and Naxalites, and present rationale for their indefensible actions. Marxists call their socialism scientific socialism, as if the self-assigned, self-adulatory adjective scientific is sufficient to testify to it being scientific—correct; however preposterous it might be from a genuine scientific angle, where the litmus test is the real practical proof. Mere dialectics of self-serving arguments and logic does not result in truth! Marxism as a science or as an alternate economic thought for a nation to build on has failed—it has been proven wrong both in theory and in practice. Those who do not genuinely understand science or scientific-methods are taken-in by mere allusion to something as scientific. (Nehru was one such person.)

Many became Marxists because being so implied being scientific-spirited, rational, progressive, pro-poor intellectual, aligned to the forces of history! Rather than being aligned to the forces of history or being on the right side of it, to the dismay of the Marxists, the unfolding history proved them to be on the wrong side; and their science—“scientific” socialism—turned out to be an alchemy!

Facts, figures, statistics and ground-level experiences of various countries prove that all brands of leftist politics—Communist, Socialist, Fabian, Nehruvian, and so on—are inherently incapable of delivering anything positive for any nation or for its poor. In fact, they have actually been at the root of poverty, want and stagnation. There is not a single example of a country which prospered or whose poor were better off under communism or socialism. The general experience is that while capitalism and free markets create prosperity, socialism invariably creates poverty. Thomas Sowell has stated: “Leftism or socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it.” These are such intellectuals.

In an interview, Nayantara Sahgal, who has returned the award, claimed, rather proudly, that she was a socialist. Shows the frozen state of these intellectuals—still living in the bad old Nehruvian times! If they are indeed true intellectuals they should have studied the state of socialism around the world and in India, and should have known its gross failure, and that as the reason for continued poverty and misery in India. Margaret Thatcher had said long back: “To cure the British disease with socialism was like trying to cure leukaemia with leeches.”

“It would be devastating to the egos of the intelligentsia to realize, much less admit, that businesses have done more to reduce poverty than all the intellectuals put together. Ultimately it is only wealth that can reduce poverty and most of the intelligentsia have no interest whatever in finding out what actions and policies increase the national wealth. They certainly don't feel any ‘obligation’ to learn economics ...”

—Dr. Thomas Sowell


To qualify as a “secular” (as per their definition) is easy. Generally rubbish things Hindu or Indian. Invent arguments in support of anything related to Muslims, quite irrespective of its merits.

Maintain deafening silence on abductions, rapes, riots, violence by Muslims in West Bengal, Kerala, Kashmir and elsewhere; but play up even a minor or alleged incident against them.

It is a common knowledge that 99% of the conversions from Hinduism are illegal: based on monetary enticements or con-job or threat or violence. But, the conscience of these freedom-of-religion-wallas does not prick at these grossly illegal, irreligious and cruel acts. They can’t risk being dubbed anti-Christian or anti-Muslim. But, they have huge issues with “ghar-wapasi”(back to Hinduism), even when they are legal, ignoring the fact that aggregate “ghar-wapasi” is a miniscule percentage of conversions from Hinduism. They are too “secular” to consider the possible long-term effects of illegal conversions on national integrity; nor do they care to study history of India and other countries in this regard. That’s a taboo subject for them—likely to deprive them of their intellectual tag. For similar reasons, they are always keen to play down or explain away abnormal differences in population growth.

Terror & “Secularism”

These “seculars”, aided by their friends in the MSM, blow up stray incidents of (mostly retaliatory) violence by some Hindu fringe groups and present them as “Hindu Terror”. The purpose is to have something to counterbalance the real terror, which is the one conducted by Islamic groups. This allows them to posit “Hindu Terror” against “Islamic Terror” and show as if the two are on par. The so-called “Hindu Terror” in terms of deaths, injuries and destruction of property may be only 0.0001% of the “Islamic Terror” in India, and further far, far less globally, making the tag “Hindu Terror” itself a misnomer; but facts, figures and statistics do not matter for these “secular” intellectuals.

To further shield the “Islamic” part, assuming the general public are fools, or not as intelligent as they are, they have invented new ways to describe terror: “Terror has no religion!” or “These so-called Islamic terrorists don’t follow true Islam!” It’s another matter that the Islamic terror groups consider themselves to be the real followers of true Islam engaging in Islam-ordained jihad and implementing Allah’s Sharia law,  liberally quoting from the foundational scriptures of Quran, Sunnah, Sira and Hadith.

Israel & “Secularism”

All these worthies blindly support Arabs and Palestinians against Israel. Why? Their definition of leftist-secularist-liberal credentials demand they blindly support Muslims against people of all other religions, be they Jews or Hindus or Christians.

77% of the British Mandate for Palestine was hived off as an exclusive Arab/Muslim state of Jordan, leaving just 23% for the Jews, yet that tiny percentage for the Jews is resented by these “liberal” “secularists”. Why shouldn’t the Arab refugees/Palestinians be absorbed by the surrounding Arab countries, rather than creating on-going problems and headache for the Jews? Weren’t lacs of Jews from the Arab lands thrown out by the Arabs absorbed by tiny Israel? Did Israel demand a piece of land from those Arab nations who threw away the Jews living there for centuries?

Israel’s total area is about 21,000 sq km, which is about 0.12% of the area of Russia (the largest country by area), 0.22% that of USA, 5.88% that of Germany, 6.72% that of Poland; and 0.97% that of Saudi Arabia, 1.27% that of Iran, 2.09% that of Egypt, 4.79% that of Iraq, 6.79% that of Oman, 11.34% that of Syria, 23.5% that of Jordan and 25.12% that of UAE. Israel occupies a negligible 0.01% of the earth’s surface.

There are 126 and 49 countries where the majority religion is Christianity and Islam respectively, while there are only 2 countries (India and Nepal) where the majority religion is Hinduism, and just 1 country where it is Judaism—Israel.

Out of the estimated world-population of about 7.1 billion, mere 0.22% are Jews, while the Christians are 33.4%,  Muslims 22.7%, Hindus 13.8%, Buddhists 6.8%, Sikhs 0.35%, ...

Despite the above position, the “liberals” and “seculars” don’t seem to appreciate that we all—all countries and people of the world—have an obligation to protect the little that the Jews now have for themselves, and ensure they leave in peace and security.


Without the burden of deep study and scholarship, they have a cheap and convenient way of self-certification as a liberal. As peace-loving, forward-looking, neutral intellectual (self-given adjectives) observers, they put India and Pakistan on par and wonder why the two can’t amicably resolve their disputes. Their grand and deep understanding is that there are good and bad people on both sides. What is needed is for the track-2/3 people like them on both the sides to get together periodically in 5 or 7 stars, and take forward the dialogue over single malts. Have these “liberals” ever questioned Pakistan on their suppression of the people of Baluchistan?  

Ignoring the incontestable legality of J&K’s accession to India with the signing of the Instrument of Accession by Maharaja Hari Singh on 26 October 1947, these intellectuals term the Indian Army’s presence in J&K as an occupying force and/or call for a plebiscite, even though during 1947-48 Pakistan had itself rejected it twice, and has never fulfilled the UN condition of vacating PoK for a fair plebiscite to take place. Unspeakable atrocities committed against Kashmiri Pandits has never disturbed them. They have never organised or protested to ensure justice for them. Why? Their code of conduct forbids them from empathising with the Hindus. Equally, they can’t be seen to be saying anything against the Muslims.

They are “liberals”, but fatwas that are illegal, curbing of freedom of expression on/in Islam, severe restrictions on women in Islam do not agitate them, because that kind of liberalism would be contradictory to their brand of secularism.


These worthies love to call their opponents fascists. It’s their favourite term of abuse. Ironically, they fail to realise that no state or nation has been more fascist-like than that under communism and socialism. One knows the examples of USSR under Stalin, China under Mao, Cambodia under Pol Pot, North Korea under the current regime, and so on. One is also aware of India of Emergency under the “great” socialist Indira Gandhi, heartily supported by the communists.

Distortionists of History

For them, the glorious period in the Indian history is the Mughal period. They paint it in liberal terms and go ga-ga about it, airbrushing the actual realities then and the gross cruelties committed. They come up with varied arguments on things like “why Aurungzeb Road in New Delhi should not be renamed”. There is a comment by Peter Drucker: “No one ever failed to find a reason one was looking for.” Vijaynagaram and South Indian kingdoms are normally ignored, or just mentioned in passing. Distorted and biased presentation of Indian history is their speciality. Many of them are also colonial lackeys. Have any of these worthies or a group of them attempted to compile something like “Black Book of British Colonialism in India”, “Black Book of Islam in India”, “Black Book of Christianity in India”, on the lines of “Black Book on Communism”?

One of the first tasks after independence should have been honest and faithful re-writing of Indian history that had been thoroughly distorted by the English. A competent team should have been set-up to do justice to it. Unfortunately, nothing of the sort happened. If anything the biased, distorted history written by the English continued. Rather than demolishing it, our “eminent” sarkari historians reinforced the nonsense. These self-serving, dishonest Nehruvian-Marxist academics, apart from the anglophiles, have done great disservice to the profession of writing history. They sidelined the genuine ones, sending them to oblivion. Why have they done so? It paid to be so. You came in the good books of Nehru, himself an anglophile, and thereafter in the good books of his dynasty. You got good positions and assignments. Academic mediocrity was no hindrance to promotions and plum positions as long as you toed the Nehruvian-Marxist-Socialist line. Not only that, by being pro-British or being soft on the British, you got invited by the West and the Whites for academic assignments, lectures, seminars, and so on. Also, your mediocre writings got published abroad, and were well-reviewed. You also got Indian and international awards. In other words, it paid to be dishonest, unprofessional and abusive to the real India.

Language Issue

On the language issue, they are generally pro-English. They felt disturbed about introduction or further promotion of Sanskrit in schools. They would rather the honour went to German! They, of course, have their strong logic for it, like they have in other matters. Of course, if it was Urdu instead of Sanskrit, perhaps no hue and cry would have been raised.

Be Discreet

They may be writers, journalists and historians, but “What really happened to Netaji Subhas Bose?” are unnecessary, dead issues for them; and they wouldn’t like the country to waste their time and resources on the matter. They, of course, have “their reasons”. Similarly, they look down upon clamour for “digging up” Henderson-Brooks/Bhagat Report on 1962-debacle.

TIM: Traditional Indian Medicine

In their opinion, Ayurveda is a “Hindu science” that doesn’t deserve any promotion or encouragement. Many government institutions and military establishment still do not reimburse expenses incurred on Ayurvedic treatment. Such a state of affairs does not bother these worthies. So what if a Chinese lady has got a Nobel in TCM (Traditional Chinese Medicine)? Not until the West gives pride of place to Ayurveda, would these fellows take notice.

Birds of the Same Feather

It would not be out of context to also mention about the group of US-based Indian academicians (almost all from humanities, and not from science or technology) who cautioned the Silicon Valley czars on Modi, again on indefensible, flimsy, concocted grounds. All these Leftists, Nehruvians, “Secular-Liberals” lack originality, and are carbon-copies of each other.


This cabal is quick to call themselves Gandhians. Gandhism has been given such projection that even a scoundrel would like to seen as a Gandhian: it helps hide/wash off sins. A crazy leftie called Maoists as “Gandhians with Guns!” When flaunting their pro-beef stunts, it does not occur to these fake Gandhians, what was the position of Gandhi on cow, cow-slaughter and beef. Like fake-Seculars and fake-Liberals, they are also fake-Gandhians.

Selective Women’s Rights

These groups are very vocal about women’s rights, but the regressive Islamic practices of Burka, Nikab, Oral-Triple-Talaaq, and so on do not bother them. Not that anything should be forced, but shouldn’t intellectuals undertake a peaceful movement to educate the public and change the regressive practices?

Defining Attribute

There are many more such attributes of this class of intellectuals. However, without going further on-and-on with them, let us understand their major and most common attribute, rather, a defining highlight. It’s that an overwhelming majority of them are Nehruvians, and/or have been supporters of Indira Gandhi and/or Rajiv Gandhi and/or Sonia-Rahul-MMS. They have essentially been pro-Nehru-Gandhi-Dynasty. They have gained from the Congress rule in one way or the other, and are beholden to the Dynasty. Now that the Dynasty is on a political decline, quid-pro-quo demands that if they can’t help the Dynasty get votes, the least that they can do is discredit the current political dispensation at the Centre.
For necessity of a term, and absence of a suitable pre-existing nomenclature for them, let’s use simple, uncomplicated labels for them: Nehruvian Intellectuals (NI), Nehruvian Intellectual Class (NIC) or "Leftist-Secular-Liberals" (LSL).


Here are some random samples from the deep wisdom of this NIC. A few older ones are also chosen to demonstrate their consistency over the years.

Karan Thapar in Hindustan Times of 9 May 2009:

“...Priyanka Gandhi will be Prime Minister of India one day. ...My hunch is we are going to see a messy outcome of the present elections...And the pain of endurance will determine the outcome of the next election. That could be as early as 2011...the process that brings Modi to power will fracture or shatter the NDA. ...And I’d say his government will probably serve its full term...So it’s seven years down the road that Priyanka Gandhi will step on to the political stage. It will be the shock of the Modi victory...that will overcome both her philosophical distaste for politics as well as her emotional reluctance to replace her brother...Convincing Priyanka won’t be easy and it won’t happen quickly. In fact, she’ll have to convince accepting, but perhaps never admitting, that Rahul, the brother she adores, cannot restore the Congress fortunes or India’s self-image and self-respect. She’ll have to convince herself that her party and her country need her. And now, why do I believe if Priyanka steps into politics she could end up as PM? Because she has a magical spark that makes her compelling. It’s a combination of charm, charisma, presence, appearance and intelligence. You see it on TV, you sense it in her interviews and, if my colleagues are correct, it captivates the audiences she speaks to. She has one further quality which is particularly rare. She understands herself and is comfortable with who she is. It’s a sort of Buddhist self-awareness and it’s reassuring to encounter. It makes you want to believe in her. Yet this is why she will struggle and agonise over becoming a politician but, when she does, this is also why she will rise to the top...”

Do you notice what the senior journalist Karan Thapar thought were her credentials to become PM: ‘charm, charisma, presence, appearance, intelligence... Buddhist self-awareness.’ The first four ‘charm, charisma, presence, appearance’ are all related to looks; ‘intelligence’ ...this he senses; and finally, having run out of any further attributes, you have the mystical ‘Buddhist self-awareness’. The critical and the most vital attributes for becoming a PM do not seem to figure at all: experience, proven achievements, competence for the job, track record, thought process, views on matters of national importance, ability to deal with complexities,... Only trivialities seem to matter!

Shobha De in The Times of India of 3 May 2009:

“Oh me, oh my... Phase 3 of the Great Indian Circus is over, and there are so many people one feels like giving jhappis, pappis and thappads to. Let's start with a pappi. Mine is reserved for the Princess of India, Priyanka Gandhi (forget all the Vadra-Shadra business—Gandhi she was, and Gandhi she remains). Clearly, the Congress backed the wrong Gandhi...

“Rahul baba, the Dimpled Darling is sweet and likeable (gelato or jalebi? You decide). But Rahul baba is not a patch on Princess Priyanka when it comes to people skills... Which raises the million-dollar question—why did Sonia push Rahul the reluctant debutant into the fray, when Priyanka ought to have been the obvious choice? Maa ki mamtaa? A mother's blind spot for the beta? It may remain one of those annoying mysteries. Can, Rahul, the nominated heir to the Gandhi gaddi ever deliver? How long is the seat going to be kept hot for the political greenhorn?...

“Meanwhile, let us throw in an extra pyaar ki jhappi for the charming sis who campaigned convincingly, sincerely and tirelessly for the son who may or may not rise. Priyanka's theme song should be, ‘Pari Hoon Mein...’...”

How amusing? Beautiful people deserve to be PMs. The only catch is, if it is the looks that matter, why not Priyanka Chopra, why Priyanka Vadra? She beats that Vadra-Shadra hands down. Besides, Chopra is a self-made person. She is beautiful, smart and intelligent. It is not a cake walk to win a world beauty contest, and it takes guts and stuff to survive the Bollywood. And hard work and talent to reach the top. What has the other Priyanka proved herself in?

Extracts from Various Writings of Aakar Patel

Given below are extracts from an Anand Ranganathan’s article
( which is actually a compilation from various writings of Aakar Patel:

“…His [Modi’s] simple views spring from his lack of knowledge. He’s not well-read, has little idea about the world or its history. It will be embarrassing, if he becomes prime minister, to have him in the same meeting as US President Barack Obama…

“…Modi has never been to college and his degree is from a correspondence course. His writing, which is all in Gujarati, is mainly hagiography. It is mediocre and shows little awareness of the world. He has not travelled much outside India. His poetry is shockingly banal. Personally, I am not enamoured of a man who thinks up such rubbish. Unfortunately, his English is also poor, which, in my opinion, has contributed to leaving his mind unopened because there is little access to the world for the Gujarati-only individual…

“…I predict the decline of the BJP and the fragmentation of its state units into regional parties based on caste…

“…The middle-class Indian thinks he’s civilised but he has no comprehension of the meaning of the word. The damage is done by a Hindi-medium world view. Trying to fight it with English-medium tools will end in frustration. When he was only 33, Thomas Macaulay began producing the Indian Penal Code. The code, a colonial set of laws, remains in force in free India. This is because an Englishman accurately assessed us, and predicted our behaviour and our reaction to external stimulus. This makes Macaulay a very great man. He could tell with confidence in 1837 how Gujaratis would go bestial in 2002…”

“…We are a Congress-minded nation. What I mean is that Indian values are best, and I would even say, only represented by the Congress...

“…It is only under Sonia Gandhi that the party has again become the standard-bearer for Ashokan secularism. She will go down in history as the finest Congress leader along with Nehru. The one asset that Sonia Gandhi built for her dynasty from the time she became its head was an image of reticence and service…

“…Sonia is slim and fit. At the dining table, she is probably disciplined. She brings the European’s refinement to our otherwise crude politics. She has brought up her children superbly. Both act correctly and modestly. Rahul is quite educated, getting his post-graduation degree at Trinity. From what I have read of him, Rahul is observant and intelligent. He has learned the limits of what the state can do to make India more liveable. He has discovered an essential truth about India. He is doing what Jawaharlal Nehru was doing with Gandhi before 1930, the discovery of India. When Rahul speaks, he usually presents an Indian reality which has come from an uncommon understanding. Though he is good looking, he doesn’t deploy his charisma. By this I mean he doesn’t pose and make heroic statements like Narendra Modi does. He chooses not to. When one is as famous and as good looking as Rahul Gandhi, charisma is a function of deployment…”

Amartya Sen

Amartya Sen lent intellectual legitimacy to UPA's disastrous socialistic give-aways masquerading as economic policies, that were designed solely for narrow electoral gains.

Did the Nobel Laureate ever question the legitimacy of the Dynasty in a democracy? Rather, he generally supported them. Could the wise Nobel Laureate not fathom the utter shallowness of Rahul Gandhi. As a responsible citizen and an intellectual, did he not feel alarmed about India being weighed down by such mediocre leadership? There was, of course, the mutual quid pro quo. The Dynasty gained some legitimacy, while you gained importance, prominence and plum positions.

Sen even went to the absurd extent of inventing a suitable intellectual deflection for the 1984 anti-Sikh attacks. “There is no philosophy of killing Sikhs in the Congress,” he told NDTV in an interview. So, the act of killing becomes grave provided there is a philosophy of killing behind it. If there is no such philosophy, it is possible to explain it away! But, what about punishing those who did the act—even though there was “no philosophy of killing Sikhs in the Congress”? What about punishing those who were then sitting in top positions in the Central government, and did nothing to prevent the carnage? What about punishing those who were then in top positions in the Congress, and actually directed the attacks and the carnage? Did Sen ever put his prestige or awards behind ensuring the perpetrators of the 1984 anti-Sikh attacks were brought to justice? Did he question the complicity of the Congress at the highest level for that heinous crime? These intellectuals are quick to pan Modi even on things unrelated to him, or for which he can't be held accountable; but for the Congress and the Dynasty they can go to absurd extent to invent an intellectual alibi.

Khushwant Singh

Khushwant Singh was yet another sample from this "Secular Liberal" class. A good writer, but look at the stands he took from time to time.

A literary festival "Khushwant Singh LitFest" (KSLF 2015) was recently celebrated between 9 and 11 October 2015 in Kasauli by many freedom-of-expression wallas. Ironically, the person in whose name the LitFest was being celebrated was the one who was instrumental in getting "The Satanic Verses" of Salman Rushdie banned in India. In his review of the book in Illustrated Weekly, Khushwant Singh had proposed a ban on the book! The book was published by Viking Penguin on 26 September 1988. Promptly, before the end of October, the import of the book was banned in India (although its possession is not a criminal offence). Many other countries banned the book subsequently, but India had the pride of place in taking lead, thanks to the great "Secular Liberal" Khushwant Singh, and the terribly muddle-headed and short-sighted, and too-eager-to-please-Muslims-and-get-political-mileage Rajiv Gandhi of the Shah Bano Case fame.

The freedom-of-expression soldier and revered "Secular Liberal" Khushwant Singh enthusiastically supported Emergency and Indira Gandhi on totally indefensibly specious grounds. Not just that, he became a promoter of the thoroughly corrupt and crude goon Sanjay Gandhi, despite his brutal sterilisation drive.

Those he had been doing chamchagiri of perpetrated Operation Blue Star in 1984, forcing him to return his Padma Bhushan award. But, he accepted Padma Vibhushan in 2007. Had the poor Sikh victims of 1984 anti-Sikh attacks got any justice that he accepted Padma Vibhushan?

Preservation of Rudyard Kipling’s Bungalow

A sub-set of NIC (Colonial-minded Nehruvian Intellectual Class) had recently demonstrated their shamelessness by advocating preservation of Rudyard Kipling’s Bungalow at the campus of the JJ School of Arts in Mumbai (Mumbai Mirror’s cover story of 18 July 2015). What had that character (Kipling), without any conscience, done? Claiming that [Reginald Edward Harry] Dyer (of Jallianwala Bagh massacre: Butcher of Amritsar) was the man who had saved India, he had started a benefit fund for Dyer, raising over £26,000! Kipling used to take pleasure in heaping ridicule upon the Indian people by the use of contemptuous expressions such as a lesser breed without the law”, “new-caught sullen people half devil and half child”. Professor Gilbert Murray had this to comment on Kipling: “If ever it were my fate to put men in prison for the books they write, I should not like it, but I should know where to begin. I should first of all lock up my old friend, Rudyard Kipling, because in several stories he has used his great powers to stir up in the minds of hundreds of thousands of Englishmen a blind and savage contempt for the Bengali…”


All right-thinking persons, and 99.9% of Indians are like that, are above communalism, shun violence, believe in freedom of expression, wish to live in peace and want to prosper. They are also self-respecting, proud of their culture, languages, religions and civilisation. They have contempt for imitators, lackeys, show-offs, pretenders, holier-and-more-intellectual-than-thou types. They are not concerned with the concocted definitions of “secularism” and “idea of India”, nor do they have patience with the poverty-perpetuating and misery-multiplying socialism. Hypocrites and opportunists they certainly abhor. NIC would do well to quietly pass into history.

* * * * *

Rajnikant Puranik
October 22, 2015

No comments:

Post a Comment