Perhaps not many know that I started this weblog sometime in the second week of September, 2001. I owe my inspiration to the chef du jour, MadMan. I used a free service, Blog City for about two years before getting my own domain, which is where this blog now lives. The kind folks at Blog City refused to give me the xml backup of all my entries–I managed to rescue entries starting from July 2003.

Mostly Personal

Now I’m not a great believer in anniversaries, birthdays and the like. I started celebrating my birthday after I got married, that at my wife’s insistence. Likewise, I apply the same principle to my blog: no bloggiversary announcements. I’ve violated this principle this year for several reasons.

My initial posts contained some very loose writing; I was pretty much careless with the choice of words. It was plain venting, often with lots of logical holes. What “opened my eyes” was a bashing I received from Ravi on a post I wrote upholding the banning of a certain gambling form. To me, the actual content of Ravi’s argument held less significance than the manner he went about with it. In a sentence, that taught me to better shape my posts and stop being an intellectual sloth.

The other, and a far more important outcome was to determine this blog’s direction.

Disposition

Several readers have asked my ideological orientation, and several have assumed it based on what they read here. I have so far not answered the first category and have let the second category rest content with their assumptions. I simply didn’t feel like it. However, after some months of soul-searching, I believe I’m a trifle confident to answer both not so much to justify anything–I make no apologies for the stuff I write–but more out of selfish reasons. I want to read this entry sometime in future and compare/contrast it with my own convictions at that point.

Right-Wing?

One common assumption is that my blog is oriented towards what is called the “Right Wing” in Western political theory. For one, there’s no such thing as a “Right Wing” in India. David Frawley lucidly explains why the Indian Right is a myth.

In media accounts today, any group that identifies itself as Hindu or tries to promote any Hindu cause is immediately and uncritically defined as ‘right-winged’. In the leftist accounts that commonly come from the Indian press, Hindu organizations are also routinely called militants and fascists. However, if we look at their actual views, Hindu groups have a very different ideology and practices than the political right in other countries. In fact many Hindu causes are more at home in the left in the West than in the right.

Read the whole thing, it is essential to understand where I stand. This blog is more or less based on Frawley’s observations. I’ve read several Indian blogs which use the “Right” label unthinkingly. Which only shows the success of the ploy of the Original Inventors of this label:
The whole idea of the ‘Hindu right’ is a ploy to discredit the Hindu movement as backward and prevent people from really examining it.
To you, gentle reader, I have some questions: how much do you really know about the Hindu revivalist movement? What is your extent of knowledge of its aims, goals, etcetera? How deeply have you read its source literature? What makes you believe all media statements, articles, and op-eds without objectivity? When a columnist uses some statement of Savarkar to damn him and the Hindu movement as Fascist, why don’t you ask yourself: what else has Savarkar written and why is only this portion being quoted here? When protesters clamour about “upholding Indian culture” what exactly is your understanding of “Indian culture?” I admit a large mass of these protesters themselves are clueless if they are asked the definition/meaning of “Indian culture.” Yet, how different is their ignorance from yours; perhaps only in the dimension? To quote Frawley again,

The truth is that the Hindu movement is a revival of a native spiritual tradition that has nothing to do with the political right-wing of any western country. Its ideas are spiritually evolutionary, not politically regressive, though such revivals do have a few extremists.

The problem lies here: the media, dominated by Leftists precisely always highlights these extreme acts, and gives them front page coverage as if these are routine acts. Hooligans and extremists exist in every nation, society and religion. Because the Mafia is powerful in Italy, can we conclude that all Italians are criminals? This kind of biased–and sometimes, openly dishonest–reporting for over three decades has created a whole slew of educated Indians who lump all supporters of Hindu causes into one compartment. This class is shamefully ignorant of Indian values and does its best to cover up the ignorance by ridiculing Indian culture. This can range from a harmless “Indian culture” (enclosed in quotes conveying sarcasm) to heaping abuses at superstitions that exist in Indian culture, as if Hinduism is defined by superstitions alone.

The communist inspired left in India has tried to demonize the Hindu movement as a right-wing phenomenon in order to discredit its spiritual orientation. The aim of the Indian left is to keep the Hindu movement isolated from any potential allies. After all, no one likes fascists, which is a good term of denigration that evokes negative emotions for both communists and capitalists.

It is my attempt to expose the political and media hypocrisy that surrounds the discourse on Hindu revivalism today as well as share whatever I know about Indian values. I guess my posts fairly reflect this.

I realize that my ideas, and more specifically language, annoys a lot of people and even infuriates several. It is impolite or derogatory or whatever. When people with little or no knowledge about Indian traditions wax negatively eloquent, it’s time to call a spade a spade. I don’t indulge in empty name-calling. In some posts, I’ve examined the argument almost line-by-line, and poked holes therein.

I’m also a strong supporter of capitalism and democracy but not the card-carrying variety. Based on what little I’ve read, I believe India had a far stronger democracy and individual freedom when it was under Kingly rule. Which is why I argue for reviving the true values of ancient India, which then made her the Most Favoured Destination just the way the US is today.

It is also relevant to state that I’m not affiliated to any organized movement–RSS, BJP, Bajrang Dal, et al–to revive Hinduism. In fact, I prefer to maintain a healthy distance from them. They have done more harm than good to the perception of Hindu revivalism in the minds of English-educated Indians as well as people abroad. They have their really bright spots but as spokesmen for Hinduism, they make a miserable case. It’s not enough if you are patriotic or committed or love Hinduism to no end. The fact is these organizations contain an overwhelming intellectual void. Their goal/vision is commendable but they pathetically lack the noetic means to realize it.

Most of post-Independence work on restoring Hindu values has been done by independent scholars who stayed outside organizational framework. Yet their contribution has had more impact than all of these organizations combined. That is really the reason the Leftist media finds easy prey in the RSS and assorted groups; also the reason why after a few failed attempts, it has studiously ignored people like Sita Ram Goel, Arun Shourie and others.

In Closing

I’m not a political person and neither is my blog oriented towards a specific ideology or political group. Because David Frawley’s perspicuous article is my inspiration, I’d like to make this blog’s stand clear with an excerpt:

However, the entire right-left division reflects the conditions of western politics and is inaccurate in the Indian context. We must give up such concepts in examining Indic civilization, which in its core is spiritually based, not politically driven. It reflects older and deeper concerns that precede and transcend the West’s outer vision. As long as we define ourselves through politics our social order will contain conflict and confusion. Democracy may be the more benign face of a political order, but it still hides the lack of any true spiritual order. [.] We cannot look to politics to change the world, but to spirituality to change politics. Hindus should not try to remake Hinduism according to current images of political correctness, but should connect the world to a greater idea of humanity than political concerns. These follow the vision of the great yogis and sages who have stood outside of western political concerns and viewpoints.

Happy Bloggiversary to Me!