I have quoted from Shri Guruji’s letter because it exposes the lie, still being spread by our detractors today, that the RSS was fi lled with hatred for Gandhiji and had a hand in his assassination. The letter clearly underscores the RSS’s respect and admiration for Gandhiji and its abhorrence toward his assassin. It is necessary to dwell a little more here on the mutually respectful relationship between the two. In its Ekatmataa Stotra, a set of Sanskrit prayers as an ode to India’s national integration, the RSS regards the Mahatma as one of the pratah smaraneeya personalities (persons worthy of being reverentially remembered every morning). Addressing the Sangh Shiksha Varg (the annual training session for would-be organisers of the RSS) of 1946—when Gandhiji was still alive—Shri Guruji had described him as Vishwa vandaneeya (deserving of being revered across the world).

Gandhiji first visited a RSS camp on 25 December 1934 at Wardha in Maharashtra, where he had established one of his ashrams. Gandhiji had come to Wardha and learning that about 1,500 swayamsevaks of the RSS had assembled in the town, he expressed his desire to visit the camp. He was accompanied by Mira Behn and his secretary Mahadev Desai. He was garlanded with fl owers and given a guard of honour. ‘I am tremendously impressed,’ said Gandhiji speaking of his visit, referring, in particular, to the fact that there was no caste distinction among the volunteers and no untouchability towards those belonging to so-called ‘low’ castes. 

Soon after Independence, when the atmosphere in the country was marred by communal violence and lack of trust between Hindus and Muslims, Gandhiji sent out a message that he wanted to talk to Shri Guruji. Shri Guruji immediately went to Birla House to see him on 12 September 1947. Gandhiji mentioned to him the various complaints about the Sangh that he had received in Calcutta and Delhi. Shri Guruji assured him that, although he could not vouch for the behaviour of each swayamsevak, the Sangh’s policy was purely service of Hindus and Hinduism. It did not threaten any other community, he clarified. The Sangh might not believe in ahimsa (non-violence), but neither did it advocate aggression. The swayamsevaks were only taught the art of self-defence.

Any organisation inspired with the high ideal of service and self-sacrifice will never fail to grow in strength all the time.’It should be evident from the above that, despite its differences with Gandhiji on certain issues, the RSS held him in high esteem. It is also evident that Gandhiji reciprocated this positive attitude. Therefore, the thought of assassinating him would have seemed heinous and sinful to the Sangh. But, sadly, falsehood often triumphs over truth in a nation. Thus, in spite of the RSS having had no role whatsoever in Mahatma’s murder—a fact that would later be established by a government-appointed commission of enquiry—there was a shrill demand from some quarters for a ban on the RSS.

In this meeting between Gandhiji and Shri Guruji, both agreed that every effort should be made to control the communal frenzy immediately. During his evening prayer meeting that day, Gandhiji referred to his talk with Shri Guruji and told the audience that the RSS leader was anguished over the gruesome violence all around and that he would make an appeal for peace and normalcy. The appeal was duly published in the press and also broadcast by AIR. In the same meeting, Gandhiji told Shri Guruji that he wished to address a gathering of RSS workers. Accordingly, on 16 September 1947, he came to meet some fi ve hundred RSS swayamsevaks assembled at Delhi’s Bhangi Colony. Here he recalled his visit, thirteen years earlier, to the RSS camp in Wardha. ‘Some years back, when the founder of the Sangh was alive, I had visited your camp. I was highly impressed to see the spirit of discipline, complete absence of untouchability and simple, rigorous style of living. 

Even those in the Congress who were suspected to be sympathetic towards the RSS were not spared from this malicious campaign, launched primarily by the communists. They publicly demanded Sardar Patel’s resignation ‘for his failure to protect’ the Mahatma and also called for the removal of Dr Syama Prasad Mookerjee from the Union Cabinet for his association with a ‘communal organisation’, meaning, thereby, the Hindu Mahasabha. Ironically, they disregarded the fact that it was at Gandhiji’s insistence that Pandit Nehru had included Dr B.R. Ambedkar and Dr Mookerjee, both of whom did not belong to the Congress, in his first Cabinet formed after August 1947. Gandhiji had made this suggestion to the Prime Minister because he wanted India’s first government to be truly broad-based in its representation and national in its character.

~ excerpts from My Country, My Life by L.K. Advani (Former Deputy Prime Minister of India)

Wendy Doniger Episode: An Analysis

Wendy Doniger is once again back in news, as always, for the wrong reasons. This time the Penguin decided to withdraw her book rather than face the criminal charges in the court of law. For those who may not be fully aware of the facts of the matter, briefly the story is as follows. Wendy Doniger published her book entitled ‘The Hindus: An Alternative History’ in 2009. She holds high sounding Mircea Eliade Distinguished Service Professor Chair in History of Religions at the University of Chicago. Even before the publication of this book, she and her students have published many books denigrating Hinduism. Most of her own and her students’ dissertations/books on Hinduism have often been described as pure pornography by even the most serious academic journals.Doniger and her students work around a central theme called “Psychoanalysis of the Hindu Religion”. Their approaches show serious problems with the training, competence and the mindset of academic scholars of Hinduism and raise questions about their parochial approaches and methodologies and at the same time the peer reviews. The image of India and Hinduism are distorted by these scholars.

Imagine the psychological damage wrought on an Indian who is made to read a text that says that ‘Ganesa’s trunk symbolises a limp phallus; Ganesa’s broken tusk is a symbol of castration complex of Indian men; his large belly and love for sweets are proof of Hindu male’s enormous appetite for oral sex; Lord Siva is interpreted as a womaniser whose temples encourage ritual rape, prostitution and murder; Ramakrishna Paramhamsa was a conflicted homosexual and a paedophile who sexually abused Swami Vivekananda; Lord Rama caused oppression of Indian minorities and women; Laxman had illicit relationship with Sita, Goddess Kali is the mother with penis; tantra temples are centers of rape and murder rituals, and so on. This section also gives examples as to how American scholars not only try to justify such outrageous writings but also how various foundations and organisations go to the extent of praising and awarding such works and giving prestigious appointments.

Such things have been going on for almost 40 years. But after the publication of her ‘The Hindus: An Alternative History’ concerned citizens took note of what she and her group have been writing. Dina Nath Batra, a practicing Hindu, filed an FIR with the police and initiated a criminal proceeding against Wendy Doniger and the Publishers – Viking and Penguin. Once the publishers saw no escape from punishment including a jail sentence, they opted for an out of the court settlement and decided to withdraw the book from published list and circulation. This out of court settlement between Penguin, a giant in the publishing industry, and Dina Nath Batra, a practicing Hindu, has prompted the pseudo-secularist and anti-Hindu activists to indulge in their old game: Hindu bashing in the name of freedom of expression and artistic creativity.

It is pertinent to note here that never in the intellectual world, any other religion – be it Islam, Christianity, Judaism, or even the smaller sects – are ever denigrated and ridiculed in the manner Hinduism is treated under the garb of intellectual freedom and freedom of expression and creativity.Therefore, a far deeper question needs to be addressed here. Are scholars like Wendy Doniger frustrated individuals who are staying away from the well defined path of intellectual discourse or is there a greater design to what they are doing?Who Controls and Promotes Such Studies?

As with any large academic field, Religious Studies in the US is highly organised and features prestigious journals, academic chairs, and planned and extensive programmes of study. The American Academy of Religion (AAR) is a primary organisation for academic scholars of Religious Studies in the United States. Religion in South Asia (RISA) is a unit within the AAR for scholars who study and teach about religions of the Indian subcontinent.

The AAR traces its origin back to 1909 when an organisation was formed for Professors and scholars of Biblican Studies whose purpose was “to stimulate scholarship and teaching in [Christian] religion”. In 1922, the name was changed to National Association of Biblican Institutions (NABI). Thus, its early history was clearly Bible-centric. In 1963, stimulated by the ‘change in the study of religion’, NABI became the American Academy of Religion (AAR). The AAR has over 8,000 members who teach in some 1,500 colleges, universities, seminaries and schools in North America and abroad. Since its inception, the religious studies organisations that evolved into AAR have maintained close relations with the Society of Biblical Literature (SBL), founded in 1880. For many decades, the two have held their conferences jointly. While SBL members primarily study and promote insiders’ views of Judeo-Christianity, the AAR members are not supposed to promote any particular viewpoint, and are required instead to pursue study of religions through a neutral lens. The stated mission of AAR is to promote objectivity from within, or outside of, any particular religious tradition. With a growing membership, the AAR has developed an enormous clout over the direction of Religious Studies in particular and the humanities at large.

The Impact of AAR ActivitiesAmericans in general are deeply religious people who see the world through the lenses of religion, particularly some variants of Judeo-Christianity. Western representation of India is inseparable from the depiction of India’s religions, particularly Hinduism. Many post-colonial scholars of Indian origin have tried unsuccessfully to wish this link away. The problems of India are seen by the Americans as inseparable from the problems of Hinduism. Attempts by ‘secular’ Indians to distance themselves from Hinduism have led to an academic vacuum about Indian traditions, which has been filled by Western and American scholars who often have their own agendas to serve.

The researches and writings of religious scholars associated with AAR and RISA go beyond the discipline’s boundaries, penetrating the mainstream media, and directly impacting the American public perception of India via museum displays, films and textbooks. The study of religion informs a variety of disciplines, including Asian Studies, International Studies, Women’s Studies, Sociology, Anthropology, History, Literature, Journalism, Education and Politics. Western theories of Hinduism have produced fantastic caricature of Hindus that could be dramatised by Hollywood movies, satirical TV sit-coms, or animated sci-fi cartoons. In all this, AAR’s Religion in South Asia (RISA) group can be identified as a key source of Western academic influence over India-related studies.

Inputs from these scholars decidedly have an impact on US foreign policy. For instance, a conference at the University of Chicago featured Wendy Doniger, Martha Nussbaum, Amartya Sen, among others; who discussed about the generic ‘Hindu groups’ as the most serious threat to India’s democracy. Indeed, in the conference announcement, Nussbaum claimed that ‘Americans are wrong to be focusing on Islamic fundamentalism as a threat to democracy’. She alleged that thinking about India is instructive to Americans, who in the age of terrorism can easily over-simplify pictures of the forces that threaten democracy… In India, the threat to democratic ideals comes not from a Muslim threat, but from Hindu groups.

Unlike in India, the academic study of religions in the US is a major discipline involving over 8,000 university professors, most of whom are members of AAR. Within this organised hierarchy, the study of Hinduism is an important and influential discipline. The book highlights the fact that the discipline has been shaped by the use of Euro-centric categories that are assumed to be universal by Western syndicated research. The producers and distributors of this specialised research/knowledge comprise a sort of closed, culturally insular cartel, which has disastrous consequence for original thinking about India and Hinduism.

The selective and questionable ‘academic research’ and its consequences filter into American classrooms, textbooks and media. Thus, the average American learns much about India from the received wisdom of the Academy.

Who is to be Blamed?Let us be honest and do some soul searching to understand who is responsible for such a sorry state of affairs regarding Hinduism studies. It must be clear that the entire blame for biases and selective portrayals of Hinduism and Indian culture can not be laid at the doorsteps of the AAR, RISA or even the biased scholars within it. Indians themselves have contributed to the problem in significant ways. While American universities have major programmes for studying world religions and cultures, Indian universities do not offer similar programmes and provide the intellectual inputs to the world. Indeed, the discipline of Religious Studies does not even exist in most universities in India due to the particular myth that positive knowledge about, and intellectual involvement with, religion breeds communalism. Many Americans are shocked to learn that there is a deep prejudice among India’s intellectually colonised intelligentsia, according to which secularism implies the exclusion from, or even condemnation of Indic religions in, civic society – which is exact opposite of the respectful place given by American secular civic society to its majority Judeo-Christian traditions.

Unlike all other major world religions, Hinduism does not have its own home team, by which we mean a combined group of academic scholars who are both practitioners of the faith and well-respected in the academia at thehighest levels. Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism and Sikhism each have their respective home teams in the academics – in fact, multiple homes representing different denominations of these religions. Even China has recently established numerous well-funded Confucius institutes around the world that teach Chinese civilisational approaches to human issues on par with the western models.However, India’s case and responsibility of Indian academia and universities do not end here. Even the departments (like Sanskrit, Archaeology, History, Culture, Philosophy etc.) where religious studies could be undertaken have not fulfilled their obligations to the nation and its people. The reason for this apathy/failure/willful negligence is best illustrated by Dilip Chakrabarti, who observes how the West has bred and bought off a whole generation of elitist Indians, and how this axis operates:

“After Independence ... [Indians] – especially those from the ‘established’ families – were no longer apprehensive of choosing History as an academic career... To join the mainstream, the historians could do a number of things: expound the ruling political philosophy of the day, develop the art of sycophancy to near-perfection or develop contacts with the elite in bureaucracy, army, politics and business. If one had already belonged to this elite by virtue of birth, so much the better. For the truly successful in this endeavour, the rewards were many, one of them being the easy availability of ‘foreign’ scholarships/fellowships, grants, etc. not merely for themselves but also for their protégés and the progeny. On the other hand, with the emergence of some specialist centers in the field of South Asian social sciences in ‘foreign’ universities, there was no lack of people with different kinds of academic and not-so-academic interest in South Asian history in those places too. The more clever and successful of them soon developed a tacit patron-client relationship with their Indian counterparts, at least in the major Indian universities and other centers of learning. In some cases, ‘institutes’ or ‘cultural centers’ of foreign agencies were set up in Indian metropolises themselves, drawing a large crowd of Indians in search of short-term grants or fellowships, invitations to conferences or even plain free drinks.”

And finally, even the scholars, who have done substantial work that challenges the western scholars’ theses, are demonised, accused of communalism, Hindutva, etc. A number of historians and sociologists have pointed out that the control of others’ depiction by the White Americans has led to their ethnic cleansing, incarceration, enslavement, invasions and genocides. Native Americans, Blacks, Jews, Gypsies, Cubans, Mexicans, Chinese, Phillippinos, Japanese, Vietnamese and now Iraqis have suffered brutalities that were legitimised by their depictions as primitive, exotic, irrational, heathen, savage, dangerous and lacking in human values.

On a wider canvas, one may feel upbeat about India’s success from business and economic points of view which is exemplified by books like Gurucharan Das’ India Unbound or Thomas Friedman’s The World is Flat or even a large number of articles in business periodical like Forbes, Fortune and Business Week. But the fact remains that perceptions change with much efforts. Diplomat and intellectual Simon Anholt observes that while India is shining in business, especially IT, there are many other factors determining its image and credibility. This image, in turn, will either facilitate or hamper India’s quest for economic growth in a globally competitive world. He writes:“A country is like a brand because it has a reputation, and because that reputation partly determines its success in the international domain. The ability of each country to complete against others for tourists, for investments, for consumers, for the attention and respect of the media and other countries is significantly determined by power and quality of its range… What seems certain is that India’s brand new image is a fragile one, based on a couple of prominent sectors and a handful of globally successful entrepreneurs… but it isn’t yet clear how ‘Capitalist India’ fits together in the public imagination with the Indo-Chic of music, fashion and movies and with the ‘Traditional India’ image of vast, mysterious, culturally rich but chaotic and even desperate country. A clear, single, visionary national strategy is badly needed – but one that is, of course, rooted in truth and not in wishful thinking.

Anholt’s point is that unless Indians take charge of engagement with the world vis-à-vis their country and its culture is portrayed properly, the economic future of all Indians may be at stake.

by Prof. Makkhan Lal

- See more at:

Happy Diwali

You may have seen messages floating around on FB urging you not to use fire-crackers this Diwali because they pollute environment and hurt dogs. 
But have you seen ever seen FB messages urging Muslims or Christians to stop killing animals on bakreed or thanksgiving and go meatless at least for a day? Hindus in India are being bombarded with such sanctimonious drivel everyday to make them feel guilty about their culture and tradition. I am not against any progress on cultural front but any move in this direction should be all-inclusive in nature. I think these sanctimonious nitwits should start their anti-cracker drive by urging the world community to stop using crackers on this new year's eve. And then, they may rope in the International Olympic Committee and the like, and urge them to stop using fire-works for their games ceremonies. Then before urging us to celebrate a cracker-less Diwali, they should provide jobs to the people in places like Shivakashi and monetary help to small vendors whose Diwali solely depends on the small profit they make by selling earthen pots, diyas and and crackers. I know they can't do any of this. Posting and pasting malicious propaganda against a community (read Hindus) on FB is easy and that is what they (self-declared communist, progressive, liberal, atheists) are busy doing now. Rather than asking a particular community to go vegan or cracker-less on their festivals,I think, there are several other really important issues that we as a country should focus on. So....friends, use fire-crackers as usual and enjoy your Diwali.

The Poverty Game. World Bank, Asian Development Bank and India's Planning Commission comes out with three magical figures.

by Devinder Sharma

Does it really matter if these children earn an equivalent of $ 1.51 or $ 1.25 or less than that per day? 
Picture Ankesh Kothari (from web)

The magicians are out on the stage. The challenge before them is to compute poverty. performing the vanishing trick, and that too without any compassion, they perform the statistical jugglery. Leading the pack is the World Bank. In its latest poverty vanishing trick the World Bank revisits its Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) index, and in one stroke it reduces India’s poverty from over 402 million in 2005 to a very impressive 98 million in 2010.

On the other hand, the Asian Development Bank has revised its poverty line to $ 1.51 per person (from the existing $1.25), and India's poverty in 2010 rises to 584 million or 47.7 per cent of the population. The gap between 584 million and 98 million is so huge that one is forced to dismiss both the estimates as unreal.

Here comes the third magician. An expert committee under Prof C Rangarajan, a former economic advisor to the Prime Minister, submitted its report to India's Planning Commission in July this year. By revising the poverty line to Rs 32 in rural areas and Rs 47 in urban areas, Rangarajan committee actually added another 93.7 million thereby raising the number of total poor to 363 million or 29.5 per cent of the population. 

So now we have three estimates: 98 million, 363 million and 584 million.

Isn’t this shocking? While not many Indians will believe that Rangarajan committee’s estimates are anywhere near the reality, and in fact is a gross underestimation of the extent of poverty in India, the World Bank’s latest estimates only shows that poverty does not require Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) targets to be achieved or any real effort to combat poverty and squalor. All it needs is a few economists who can play around with statistics. These economists can perform the vanishing trick much better than the Indian rope trick.

According to the World Bank’s latest estimates, global poverty has come down overnight from 1.2 billion to 571 million.

The earlier poverty line figure in India was Rs 27 for rural areas and Rs 33 for urban areas as computed by the Tendulkar committee a year back. This had raised a storm over the faulty and impractical estimates necessitating the setting up of yet another committee under C Rangarajan. And if the recommendations of the Rangarajan committee are to be believed, it tells us that there is something dubiously wrong with the way India is trying to deliberately keep poverty low. In all fairness, the new poverty line is nothing but a starvation line. It only tells us how many people need emergency food aid.

World Bank’s projections are still worse. In order to justify economic liberalization, it has been trying to fiddle around with social indicators as well as the poverty line to establish that the market mantra is working. World Bank’s chief economist Kaushik Basu defends the exercise by saying: “In case a dollar in Ghana can buy three times what it can but in the United States, then a person who earns 1,000 dollar each month in Ghana is said to earn 3,000 in terms of PPP-adjusted dollars”. But the reality is that even in the United States, despite being a privatized economy, hunger has shattered 25 years record. A record 49 million people, one in seven, depend upon food coupons to meet their daily food needs. One in four lives in poverty in America.

The World Bank is wrong. In case of India, with or without the new PPP index of the World Bank, I would like to know what can a poor with a daily income of Rs 47 in urban areas buy three times more than what he can buy in America with the same money. It therefore tells us that economists are no different from the famed Indian magicians. They too can perform the vanishing magic trick with alacrity. 

Global empirical evidence is now emerging challenging the World Bank's deliberate underestimation of poverty. Recent studies (ECLAC 2002, 2011) have conclusively shown that in Latin America for instance actual poverty rates are twice than what the World Bank had projected. More recently, on April 11, 2014, a study by the University of Bristol published in the Journal of Sociology concludes that the World Bank is painting a 'rosy' picture by keeping poverty too low due to its narrow definition. Dr Christopher Deeming of the Bristol University's School of Geographical Sciences is quoted as saying: "Our findings suggest that the current international poverty line of a dollar a day seriously underestimates global poverty."

In India too, the entire effort of policy planners as well as the numerous expert committees constituted over time to estimate poverty have simply tried to brush the realities under the carpet. While Rangarajan Committee tabulates a new poverty line, way back in 2007, Arjun Sengupta committee report had estimated that 77 per cent of the population or 834 million people were unable to spend more than Rs 20 a day. But more recently, the consumer expenditure data presented by the National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO) 2011-12 paints before us the grim realities.

Accordingly, if you are spending more than Rs 2,886 per month in the rural areas and Rs 6,383 in the urban areas you are part of the top 5 per cent of the country’s population. In other words, those spending more than Rs 6383 in urban areas are in the same category as Mukesh Ambani, Ratan Tata, Nandan Nilekani et al. For the rest 95 per cent, roughly 118-crore people, life in any case remains tough. With or without the growth trajectory, their life hasn’t changed. In fact, with the aggressive pitching by the corporate-controlled media, the growing social divide is getting completely ignored. Poor have simply disappeared from the economic radar screen.  

Another estimate exposes the glaring inequalities. The economic wealth of 56 people is equal to the economic wealth of 600 million people. No wonder when we take averages like the rising average income, it hides the rapidly growing inequalities. The mainline economic thinking is that the 600 million would benefit from a trickle-down impact. Now with the number of absolute poor being reduced with a magic stroke, the World Bank will succeed in painting a rosy picture by brushing the poor under the carpet in one single sweep hides the truth. With the passage of time, these unchallenged statistics will be repeatedly used and get accepted over time.

Unless the World Bank makes an immediate correction, all projections of removing 'extreme poverty' by 2030 would be as farcical as the new poverty estimates are. But I doubt if there would be an international uproar forcing the World Bank to redraw the poverty line. At this rate, in the next five years when the World Bank will revise its PPP index, poverty in India on paper will disappear. The poor in India will one day suddenly wake up to find themselves bracketed with those living in opulence. That’s the power of statistical jugglery. #

हाइपर एक्टिव ऑनलाइन स्वघोषित वामपंथी और नारीवादी एक्टिविस्ट

आजकल के ज्यादातर "हाइपर एक्टिव ऑनलाइन स्वघोषित वामपंथी और नारीवादी एक्टिविस्ट" किसी न किसी शारीरिक और मानसिक स्वास्थ्य समस्या या बीमारी से जूझते पाये जाते हैं। चक्कर क्या है भाई? 

स्वघोषित बुद्धिजीवी और सेक्युलर वर्ग

हमारे देश के 'स्वघोषित बुद्धिजीवी और सेक्युलर वर्ग' को बहुसंख्यक त्यौहारों से इतनी घृणा क्यों है? उन्हें होली में पानी बर्बाद होते दीखता है, दिवाली में वायु प्रदूषण होते दीखता है, रक्षाबंधन महिलाओं को कमजोर बनाने की कोशिश दिखती है, करवा चौथ का व्रत उन्हें महिला अधिकारों पर आघात लगता है, दुर्गा पूजा और गणेश चतुर्थी पर मूर्तियों के विसर्जन से प्रदूषण होता दीखता है, विश्वकर्मा पूजा पर हिंसक हथियारों की पूजा ही दिखती है, महिषासुर में उन्हें भगवान दीखता है, गणेश उत्सव का उत्तर भारत में प्रसार होने से उन्हें मिर्ची लगती है, करवा चौथ उन्हें फिल्मों की देन लगती हैं। पर वहीँ दूसरी तरफ गुड फ्राइडे, क्रिसमस, हेलोवीन, बकरीद इत्यादि पर उनकी आँखों पर पट्टी बंध जाती है जैसे उन त्योहारों में तो कुछ बुराइयां हैं ही नहीं। उन्हें मंदिरों में दी जाने वाली बलि से समस्या है पर जीभ के स्वाद के लिए अपने और अल्पसंख्यकों के द्वारा मुर्गे, बकरे, भैंसे को काटकर खाने में नहीं। अगर तुम कह दो कि हम शाकाहारी हैं तो ये सेक्युलर बुद्धिजीवी आपसे तुरंत पूछेगा - आप सवर्ण हैं? पंडित हैं? जवाब 'न' मिलने पर फिर चिढ कर सवाल करेगा - 'तब क्यों नहीं खाते हैं?' अरे मूर्ख !!! मैं नहीं खाता हूँ, मेरी मर्जी - मांस खाने और न खाने के लिए क्या किसी जाति विशेष में पैदा होना जरुरी है। हिंदुस्तान में "बुद्धिजीवी" होने का दिखावा करने के लिए लोग क्या क्या नहीं करते - अपने माँ-बाप को भी गाली देना पड़े तो देंगे। इन बुद्धिजीवियों में 'यूनिवर्सिटी' से 'पढ़े-लिखे' लोगों की तादाद बहुत हैं। मुझे तो सहन नहीं होते ऐसे दोमुहे ढोंगी प्रवृत्ति के लोग। अगर किसी चीज का मूल्यांकन करना ही है तो 'संतुलित' होकर प्रामाणिक तथ्यों के साथ अपनी बात रखे - हर चीज के दो पहलू होते हैं।

वामपंथी बुद्धिजीवियों की कुतर्क करने की आदत

भारत के वामपंथी बुद्धिजीवियों की कुतर्क करने की आदत का एक छोटा सा उदाहरण - अगर आप उससे देश में हिन्दुओं के अधिकारों का रोना रोएं तो वो कहेगा - अरे नहीं, नहीं !!! हिन्दू "बहुसंख्यक" हैं, ८०% हैं, मेजोरिटी में हैं इत्यादि - - // पर जब आप कहेंगे कि हिन्दू बहुसंख्यक हैं तो वो कहेगा //- - नहीं, नहीं !!! आदिवासी हिन्दू नहीं हैं, एससी दलित (१५%) हिन्दू नहीं है, दक्षिण भारतीय हिन्दू नहीं है वो भारत के मूल निवासी है, मुसलमान हिन्दू नहीं थे, अरब से आये, पूर्वोत्तर भारतीय हिन्दू नहीं है, हिन्दू तो मुश्किल से भारत की जनसँख्या का २०-२५%, बस !!! - - - इसलिए भारतीय वामपंथी कुतर्कियों से सावधान - जहाँ मिले या तो इग्नोर करो या फिर जम कर इनका इनका ऐसा उपहास करें कि वो कभी आपसे कुतर्क न करने की कोशिश करे।

फर्क देखिये

फर्क देखिये - बचपन में यदि कॉपी/नोटबुक जमीन पर गिर जाती थी या पाँव के नीचे आ जाती थी या किताब/नोटबुक का पन्ना फट जाता था तो विद्या की देवी का अपमान समझ हम उसके पैर छू लेते थे, अपने भीतर ग्लानि महसूस होती थी। क्योंकि हम उसकी इज्जत करते थे, उसके महत्व को समझते थे, उसे प्यार करते थे। लेकिन अब जैसे जैसे उम्र बढ़ती जा रही है, कागज सिर्फ "कागज" बन के रह गया है, सैकड़ों पन्ने रोज कूड़ेदान में चले जाते है, किताबे जमीन पर पड़ी रहती हैं - पर न सरस्वती का अपमान होता है और न ही ग्लानि महसूस होती है। यह उदासीनता मुझे खलती है - जाने कहाँ से जिंदगी में घुस गयी? मैं खुद ही नहीं जानता। कागज़ को सरस्वती रूप समझ उसे सम्भालकर रखने का जो संस्कार दादा-दादी और माँ-बाप से मिला था - आज कहीं गायब सा हो गया है।