Arun Shourie on Cultism of Political

Correctness

Arun Shourie writes this in 1996- Notice also the

convergence of interests: of the interests of Christian
missionaries and Islamic groups, of the official US
establishment, of our secularists. Notice the
subservience of US academies to the current fashion of
"political correctness." Notice the total perversion,
indeed the complete inversion: the groups whose
foundational belief is theocracy, whose ideology is
exclusiveness distilled 10 times over are the very ones
who are accusing Hindus of ahem -- theocratic! The
very groups the Leftists -- whose forbears collaborated
with the Nazis, whose ideology is Nazism by a
different name are the ones who are accusing Hindus
of being Nazis.
Aronite thinking highlights the currently discredited
antecedents of this Cultism consistently discovered by
all the three peoples targeted by them and suffered-
the pagans, accursed Jews and the patriot of a west, to
be the same drab mix- auto-phobia, Leftist screwed up
pseudo-liberalism, and neo-colonial missoism- who
take turns to appear as the fanatical advocates of this
hollow and destructive creed of Political Correctness-
Taking a re-look at what Arun Shourie so insightfully
observed more than a decade ago when this political
cult started its business full time- with the bashing of
Hindus, their faith, homeland and their interests.
Arun Shourie was a much acclaimed Journalist, political
activist and winner of prestigious awards-
His writings have gained him a considerable following around
the country, as well as several national and international
honours. Among these are the Padma Bhushan, the
Magsaysay Award, the Dadabhai Naoroji Award, the Astor
Award, the K.S. Hegde Award and the International Editor of
the Year Award and The Freedom to Publish Award[10].
Shourie is a member of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). He
has been a member of the Rajya Sabha and also held the
office of the Minister of Disinvestment, Communication and
Information Technology in the Government of India under
Atal Bihari Vajpayee's prime ministership. As Disinvestment
Minister, he led the sale of Maruti, VSNL, Hindustan Zinc
among others. His position as Minister was a controversial
one, but he and his secretary Pradip Baijal are much respected
for kick-starting what people believe was a best-in-class
process. In a poll of India’s top 100 CEOs in February 2004,
he was ranked the most outstanding minister of
Mr.Vajpayee’s government.[7]
(The above Wikipedia file on him would be a scant intro to the many sided
personality of this relentless crusader of Truth)

With Friends Like

These, Having
Enemies is Better
Arun Shourie

 
 

Some months ago an official of the United

States state department met me through a
common scholar friend. The official had
been following Indian affairs for many
years, in particular the Indian press. He
knew more about the press, especially
about trends in our Indian language papers
than a casual reader like me is ever likely
to know. He was also concerned about the
frequency with which our countries get into
scraps with each other. Last week the same
scholar friend sent me an account which
that officer had written and circulated about
the way India, in particular Hindus, are
again being portrayed in the USA. The note
deserves to be read in full, so what follows
is the verbatim text of his note.
Politically aware Indians have made much
recently of the increasing strain between
the US administration and India over
positions and statements on Kashmir.
Those expressing this concern, however,
may be unaware of a growing phenomenon
currently taking place which has more
profound and far-reaching implications:
legitimisation of Hindu-bashing in US
institutions.
Influenced and supported by noisy self-
appointed Indian "secularists," many
western scholars and government officials
are now taking a position on Hindu
revivalism. With very few exceptions, this
position is exceedingly negative. Though
this phenomenon is now limited to those
conversant with South Asia and has not yet
influenced the general public's opinions, in
time it will. Though there are many forums
for Hindu-bashing currently being opened, I
will reserve my comments here to two
recent conferences, one sponsored by the
US state department and one by the
University of Wisconsin.
On July 16 of this year the state
department held a conference entitled,
Hindu Revivalism in India: Position,
Prospects and Implications for the US.
Many highly placed individuals were
present including ambassador elect deputy
assistant secretary for Regional Analysis
Phyllis Oakley and a wide range of US
government officials. Scholars were invited
to make presentations on Hindu revivalism.
On the whole, the atmosphere was one of
ridicule. There was a lot of finger pointing
at Hindu revivalism as the source of India's
current problems and of potential conflict
with the US.
On November 5-7, at the annual
conference on South Asia at Madison,
Wisconsin, two panels and many individual
presentations were devoted to Hindu
nationalism. Every single presentation was
negative towards Hindu nationalism with
remarkable statements being made that I
never thought I would hear in an academic
institution.
I will detail the presentation of Lisa McKean
of the University of Sydney because she
was a featured speaker at both the
University of Wisconsin and at the state
department conference. I will give a
sampling of the statements made by other
scholars. Though I have documented their
statements as well, I will avoid reference to
their names in this note.
Lisa McKean claims to have spent a lot of
time with Vishwa Hindu Parishad, enough
to make scholarly presentations, anyway!
The basic thrust of her argument is that
Vishwa Hindu Parishad of America is a
fascist organisation which remits funds to
its illegal sister organisation in India. Not
mentioned of course is that the corrupt,
opportunistic Congress banned the VHP for
its own political gain. Lisa describes VHP
sponsored groups in America as "Front
Organisations" for a larger fascist cause.
She refers to VHP activities, including
Diwali celebrations and Swami
Chinmayananda's spiritual camps as
"covert operations" and to active members
as "militant activists." Lisa called the late
Shri Chinmayananda a "master
manipulator" and alleged that he initiated
unwanted physical contact with women,
including herself. Not content with merely
bashing VHP, however, Lisa referred to the
colourful monthly magazine, Hinduism
Today as a front paper supporting militant
activities. Global Vision 2000 was targeted
as a fascist assembly. She described Hindus
moving into professional positions as
"infiltrators" working for the cause of Hindu
fundamentalism. Hindu Digest, Samskar
and the Hindu Students Council did not
escape her censure.
Perhaps most appalling was the warm hand
given to her at the end of her presentation
in both conferences. Praised as a "bright,
young progressive scholar," most of the
audience accepted her statements as fact,
particularly those progressive Indian
"secularists." One even suggested that
universities should perhaps ban Hindu
Students Council of America -- imagine the
outcry if someone suggested banning an
Islamic or Christian Students' Council. Lisa
was certainly not alone and played to an
appreciative audience in both locations.
Scholars making presentations at the state
department conference were less
concerned with facts than with making
points. Many erroneous statements were
made such as "The Sangh Parivar planned
the execution of Mahatma Gandhi and will
stop at nothing.”The misquoted statement
of Shiv Sena leader Bal Thackeray about
Indian Muslims being like the Jews of
Europe was used in making the
authoritative statement that "Sangh Parivar
under- prinnings are just like those of
Nazis." An example of how criticism of
Sangh Parivar activities is extended to
Hindus in general is the statement of a
Johns Hopkins scholar that "Hindus in the
US are very sympathetic and supportive of
fundamentalism." One scholar even
justified discrimination against Hindus in
India itself with the remarkable statement,
"Equal rights to the Hindus are equal to
abolition of minority rights." The scholar
made this statement after echoing the
hollow line started by Indian "secularist"
Romila Thapar that "There is in reality no
such thing as Hinduism."
The University of Wisconsin panels were
truly pitiful and I will give only a few quotes
from various presentations. One Indian
"secularist" suggested that India was an
artificial entity which "Requires fascism to
maintain its existence." A scholar from
Berkeley referred to the "dirty communal
imprint" that Hindus leave on Indian
society. Hindu Sangram Parishad's effort in
India to spread Sanskrit learning among all
castes and classes was seen as "militant
activity" rather than a remarkable
democratisation. Shri Ramakrishna
Paramahamsa was referred to as a
"Celluloid Divinity" and Swami Vivekananda
was referred to as "reactionary at home
though seemingly progressive abroad." The
popular Ramayana and Mahabharata serials
were referred to as "communalist,
oppressive and inspirational to fascists."
The University of Wisconsin's willing
(witting or unwitting) participation in
Hindu-bashing is proven by their giving a
booth to the so-called "Overseas Friends of
India" from Shrewsbury, Massachusetts.
This organisation has apparently taken the
lead in spreading malicious and misleading
propaganda. Calling Hinduism "unrivalled in
sheer bigotry and intolerances, these
overseas "friends" claim that Hindus plan
pogroms of minorities and are guilty of
having "banished Buddhism," and having
"Forced Jainism into a sect of Hinduism."
Rape is claimed as the normal response of
a Hindu male to a "minority" woman.
Harijans are claimed to be non-Hindu.
Sympathy is claimed for the "persecuted
Harijans who are not allowed to convert to
Christianity or Islam." The "lack of
availability of beef" is claimed a "denial of
protein to a poor population." Finally these
"friends" of India urge overseas Indians to
write to their ambassador to urge India to
stop this communalist behaviour (assist
efforts to delegitimize and malign
Hinduism). With "friends" like these, having
enemies would be an improvement.
There is no doubt that "secular progressive"
scholars bash other religions and traditions
as well. The consensus viewpoint of
western scholarship for quite some time
has basically been one of aggressively
promoting atheistic values which denigrate
traditional culture and religion. Yet despite
the "normalcy" of this denigration, I cannot
therefore dismiss these scholars' work as
harmless and limited to ivory towers.
Though their arrogant pronouncements are
irrelevant to, and cannot impact upon
divine truth, I fear Hindus in the West may
be persecuted due to the wilful spread of
false and misleading propaganda on the
part of these scholars. It particularly pains
me to see Indians, Hindu by birth,
participate in the denigration of their own
civilisation. What would they replace it
with, a "progressive India" with a 50 per
cent divorce rate, high illegitimate birth
rates, McDonalds on every corner, discos
replacing temples and MTV as the most
watched TV show?
Incredible as the assertions of these
misguided "intellectuals" are, there is a
danger of an appearance of legitimisation
of these ideas through repetition. These
unprincipled "scholars" would leave no
stone unturned to denigrate Hindu culture.
The "secular" Indians are at the forefront of
this campaign which is willingly supported
by proselytising Muslims and Christians
who have the same goal: the denigration
and delegitimisation of the traditional Hindu
culture and world view. The rhetoric of the
"Overseas Friends of India" is similar to
that of an extreme group of Protestant
evangelicals who have portrayed Rajneesh
as mainstream Hinduism and maliciousness
and ignorance as prerequisites to being
Hindu. How this will affect an unknowing
American public, when repeated over time
remains an open question. Some
possibilities:
Tenure of an university professor of Indian
ethnicity being contingent upon his or her
allegiance to Hindu-bashing rhetoric when
dealing with Indian subject matter (a very
real possibility in light of the suppression of
the truth already being justified in some
universities due to political correctness
ideology).
Professional advancement among Hindus in
non-university settings requiring their
disassociation from "backward"
delegitimized practices and beliefs (based
on the assumption that the only good
Indian is a dead Indian or at least a secular
atheist who is "dead" to his own culture
and civilisation and therefore "progressive"
and "liberal."
Increasing embarrassment and alienation
on the part of Hindu youth growing up in
this country from identifying with Hindu
beliefs and practices due to their
delegitimisation.
Hindus having to repeatedly justify their
religious practices such as Puja to Ganapati
as, not being "one of those weird cult
practices."
Hindus having to work much harder to
dispel mistaken impressions and to ward off
a witch hunt mentality which could be
precipitated by incessant Hindu bashing.
There is much historical precedent for this
in Western culture (Jew-hunts, etc).
The complexity of Indian civilisation simply
overwhelms most western scholars (and
apparently, Indian "secular" scholars as
well). They do not, for the most part,
understand that the rhythms of Hinduism
beat in the heart of most "oppressed
untouchables" and in the hearts of much of
"the minorities" as well, including most
Indian Muslims before 20th century
politicisation. One scholar, facing the
complexity of increasing Harijan, Christian
and Muslim sympathy for Hindutva, echoed
the true feelings that most western
scholars have always exhibited towards
India. Asked how he could analyse such a
complex civilisation, he replied, "When
Hinduism dies, we'll do a better job."
The note speaks for itself. Notice the kinds
of things that pass for scholarship at
meetings of scholars on South Asia. This
kind of "scholarship" will certainly harm
America itself, as it has done in the past:
the then prevalent notions of "political
correctness" kept European and American
intellectuals from speaking the truth about
Communism for decades, and thereby led
the governments to misjudge the nature of
the beast that confronted them.
Next, notice how several of your friends will
react to a note like this one. Sentences in
the note speak to the regard this particular
official has for India, for Hinduism in
particular. In the eyes of so many, this fact
alone will be sufficient to destroy the
veracity of his narrative, to reduce the
importance of what he has pointed out.
Now look at the question the other way:
how many of the same persons ever
discount what a person says about India
and Hinduism when it is evident that he
hates Hinduism and India? When someone
who is obviously attached to Islam says
something about Islam -- even in the face
of all of its history and all the canonical
texts -- do these scholars and friends
dismiss it? Do they not on the contrary
insist that what he is saying must take
precedence over the evidence of mere texts
and history'? And now? Because sentences
suggest that the official thinks well of India
and Hinduism what he says must be
discounted! Almost the only thing which
might keep such persons from throwing out
the note altogether and at the outset itself
is the fact it has been written by an
American and not an Indian! But what if the
officer, though American, actually is one
who has converted to Hinduism?! That
would be the final, conclusive "proof' surely
-- the content itself being the primary
"proof!" -- That nothing in the note should
be believed at all! "That explains it all,"
these friends will proclaim in triumph!
"But surely," even the non-secularists
among us will exclaim, "it would have been
so much better if a person less obviously
appreciative of India and Hinduism had
written the note." And what is the proof of
the person being less than fit to narrate the
facts? That he has not indulged in Hindu-
bashing! That he has not conformed to the
prevailing intellectual fashion that instead
he has shown it up! And what if the
"objective", "neutral" scholars are too
intimidated by the intellectual fashion to
testify to the truth? My friend puts it well. A
man tried to stand up to the gangsters in
town. In retaliation they set upon his sister,
and raped her in view of a large crowd.
Everyone was terrified. The brother ran
from one eye-witness to the other
beseeching them to help him lodge a
complaint with the police. None dared. At
last he went himself and lodged the FIR.
"But wouldn't it have been better if
someone other than you had come to
register the case'." exclaimed the
policeman. "After all, she is your sister.
Everyone will say you are an interested
party."
That is the secularist position. But notice
that this is their position vis-a-vis India and
Hindus alone: if the country in question is
Palestine and the narrator is a Muslim, say,
then they insist that what he says has
conclusive evidentiary status. And then
there is the other point: if even the brother
will shy away from filing the case when his
own sister has been raped, why would
others?
In a word, what answers to the preceding
questions explain is the depth to which our
self-esteem has been pushed. what they
document is the extent to which secularists
have internalised double standards and
calumny, and the extent to which they
have been able to brow-beat others into
adhering to these skewed standards.
Notice the persistence of calumny; the
falsehoods which are being hurled at us are
exactly the ones which the missionaries
fabricated and smeared us with a 100 years
ago -- and yet when, at the invitation of
the Catholic Bishops Conference of India, I
had occasion to refer to them two years
ago in my book, Missionaries in India, the
cry went up, "But why are you digging up
these old things? Who talks about India and
Hinduism to those terms today?"
Notice the congruence of themes: what is
being put off at these conference in the US
is exactly what our secularists and others
put out in the newspapers here; the
themes and premises are the very same --
that there really is no such thing as
Hinduism -- the very words are the same.
The primary responsibility for this is not of
the foreign scholar as of the secularist
Indians: just as the spectacles of the
foreign correspondent working in Delhi get
coloured by what he reads and hears from
Indian journalists writing in the English
newspapers in this one city, the perception
of the foreign scholar -- a "specialist on
South Asia" though he be -- gets coloured
by what he hears from and reads of the
output of Indian scholars.
Notice also the convergence of interests: of
the interests of Christian missionaries and
Islamic groups, of the official US
establishment, of our secularists. Notice the
subservience of US academies to the
current fashion of "political correctness."
Notice the total perversion, indeed the
complete inversion: the groups whose
foundational belief is theocracy, whose
ideology is exclusiveness distilled 10 times
over are the very ones who are accusing
Hindus of ahem -- theocratic! The very
groups the Leftists -- whose forbears
collaborated with the Nazis, whose ideology
is Nazism by a different name, are the ones
 who are accusing Hindus of being Nazis.
But falsehood is a potent weapon. Neither
American Presidents and Congressmen nor
the American people at large have any time
to ascertain facts about India. Policy is
therefore formed by just a handful of
middle- level officers -- the Robin Raphaels
whose predilections have been on display in
such vivid colours these five years.
Presidents and Americans in general go
along with what this handful concocts --
they are conditioned to do so by the
stereotype which they have been fed over
the years. It is this stereotype which this
kind of falsehood manufactures.
When what the note of this official reveals
is the perception Americans are let to form
of India, the policy which they will
countenance will be one of unadulterated
hostility. That will harm not just Indo-US
relations, it will harm India no end.

Courtesy Asian Age- 1996, from Sumit Saxena’s –

The Arun Shourie Site.