Ways used by Marxists in India to recruit communist cadres in universities.

[Guest guest]

Museum of Natural History on a subject, very emotional and sensitive to many

Hindu Americans, the focus of the discussion was carefully crafted, controlled

and narrowed down just enough to demonize a particular community, the movies

played hurt the emotions and sensitivities of that community. The main event

was a documentary showing people donning `Hindu' robes and chanting `Hindu'

slogans terrorizing Muslims and inciting mobs to demolish a mosque. This

documentary `In the name of God' is a Marxist caricature of Hindu ideals and

ethos, it associates Hindu identity and symbolism with terrorism and

demolition of religious places, represents Hindus as terrorists, Muslims as

victims and Marxists as the

only sane Indians. This is a political documentary used by the Marxists in

India to recruit communist cadres in universities. Communists in US

universities are now discovering the convenience of this and other tangential

recruitment tools. Over the years the communist strategy in India has been to

debase Indian religion and idols, recruit Muslims by being congruent with the

anti idolatory aspects of Islam and recruit Hindus by breaking them out of

idolatry/Hinduism. Here, they start with their own act of demolition, of

`Ramayana', the `sanctum sanctorum' of Hindu consciousness, with

`We Are Not Your Monkeys', a music video by the same director Mr. Anant

Patwardhan, that reworks `Ramayana' into a slanderous representation of caste

and gender oppression. Viewing those two movies negates every positive

impression someone has of Hinduism and Hindus, assuming he/she is not very

acquainted with the communist way and the Indian political process. It

belittles Hinduism and Hindus, may provoke someone to look at his Hindu friend

thru his perception of WTC bombers. It also lends a false sense of credibility

because both the director and moderator have Hindu names. An ideal documentary

like this should have started with the logic of demolitions, the idea that

religion can command believers to raze houses of worship of infidels; which

would also be a good background to focus on the reasons

for this outrage. Parallels and precedence of this demolition abound all Indian

subcontinent. But doing so would turn the purpose of this documentary on its

head. Because, all other acts of demolition in the Indian subcontinent has

been directed against Hindus since eleventh century AD and has been perpetuated

by Muslims. And to this day the Shrines on the sanctum sanctorum (Garvgriha) of

Hindu Avatars Rama (in Ayodhya), Krishna Janmabhoomi (in Mathura) and most

sacred Siva temple (Varanasi) are replaced with the domes of West Asia, the

structures of subjugation and insult, made to remind Indians the vulnerability

of their Gods and the triumph of the 'only true God'. Temples are still being

destroyed in Kashmir, the only

Muslim majority province in India. Most mosques build over demolished temples

have their stairs build with demolished Hindu idols, this is meant to compel

neo-converts to step on 'once sacred' idols and reaffirm their commitment to

denigrate Hinduism. Indian neo-converts to Marxism use Patwardhan movies in a

similar way to bash Hindutva and rise in rank and respect amongst the

believers. Both the movies are political documentaries meant to polarize a

particular electorate, and like all political docs; it is exclusivist and

presents a biased one-sided view of an extremely sensitive and long debated

issue. To let Dr. Rajgopal use this and his anti-Hindu view as an instrument of

malice makes NYU policies partisan. Most foreign audience watching these movies

are not aware

of the context and perspectives that necessitates such movies to prop

`secularism' in India. Our Indian definition of 'secularism' was to exclude

Hindu traditions from state policy. Most Hindu politicians in pre-partition

India made a career out of co-opting the Muslim community with communal sops

and concessions giving more space to Islam in the political discourse. All

these were meant to preempt any desire for separation amongst the Muslims. Post

partition, those policies and the politicians were at risk of becoming

irrelevant. Secularism was then designed to fit the needs of those

pre-partition secular Congressmen, to exclude/debar the competition and

marginalize the role of the Hindu clergy and ex maharajas in politics. The

then Indian premier Nehru and his daughter Indira Gandhi's personal ties with

Soviet Union reinforced the need for secularism - to leave the Indian political

space uncontested to the Marxists, the communists went on to take over most

state institutions. If we compare the way India fared, wrt other countries, the

decision to exclude religion wasn't necessarily a bad thing. It let us practice

the hard and soft sciences without any ideological bias. It let us adopt ideas

from outside- fast, and made social conditions appropriate to absorption of

modern technology and statecraft. We got a liberal state by preempting any

religious extremism and the 7% Muslims played an important role in the

enforcement and adoption of this secular

idea. Just like the army protects democracy without practicing it, Muslims in

India protected secularism without practicing it. And now, as their ratio in

the political population cross the critical line, the power fulcrum they so

long exerted for a secular state is flipping an exact 180 degrees. This change

is expressing in the ethnic cleansing of non-Muslims in Muslim majority

province of Jammu and Kashmir, terrorism and extortion in the rest of India.

The extortion barons are Muslims based in Pakistan, the Middle East and India.

They create their

political muscle with the props that Patwardhan and the communists provide to

make them mainstream. The electorate in India is slowly becoming aware of the

perils of an unsecular minority group and Patwardhan movies are gaining in

importance to demonstrate that the majority is as unsecular as the Muslim

minority. The Patwardhan movies obfuscate the fissures in an Indian identity,

the conflict of being an "Indian" or a `Muslim'. That was also the ground logic

of partition of the subcontinent `Muslims and non-Muslims constitute two

separate nations'. Let's see what we have after 50 years of partition. We have

a Secular Democracy and two Islamic states. In India, we have socialists,

capitalists, free marketiers, communists, nationalists; visionaries of

all sorts and a politically aware electorate shaping our collective polity thru

the past 50 years. Our counterparts on the other hand debated on rightfully

representing Islam and in their zeal to do so, had to outsmart each other in

bashing the kafirs at all occasions, and channeled all ire, frustration at the

great Satan India (now India, Israel and US). That resulted in systematic

liquidation of minorities (read Hindus), while the silent majority looked the

other way. Muslim population rose from 4 percent to 20 percent in forty years

in India, and non-Muslim population went down from 40 percent to less than 10

percent in Bangladesh and 2 pct in Pakistan. And Mr. Patwardhan shows the

victim, a lamenting old Muslim man and his dilapidated mosque. Very symbolic.

And diabolic, to show the victims as aggressors, just to substantiate his

rhetoric, to alleviate the embarrassment his Muslim friends from Bangladesh

has to go through when asked about the molestation of Hindu women by the Bangla

Taliban. In the last three months there were hundreds of documented cases of

gang rape of Hindu women by ruling Muslim fundamentalists in Bangladesh

(Amnesty Intl Report). As we speak 60+ Hindus traveling to Ayodhya are burned

to death by Muslims in Gujarat, India. But Mr. Rajagopal wants to muse on a

12-year-old event in Ayodhya. Does that

suggest something? Is he trying to promote his Marxist perception of Hindutva as

NYU's official one, Having Dr. Rajagopal moderate a discussion on Hindutva is

like inviting a microbiologist to moderate a seminar on particle mechanics?

Which is implausible? Then, is NYU as an institution lampooning the ethos and

ideology of the largest democracy? That too is hard to believe. I'd rather

believe that Dr. Rajagopal is using NYU privileges and premises to further his

own agenda of grooming more Marxists by creating an environment where all South

Asian Hindus around him will be forced to disassociate from, and downplay his

Hindu identity, and identify with Dr. Rajagopal and his cohorts of Marxists,

who move in the garb of `leftist liberals'. The discussion session could have

been a debate on managing fault lines of `religious solutions to incentive

traps'. Why `public goods dilemma’

made enforcing `religious solutions' inevitable, and why aberrant behavior is

not a choice in societies depending on `religious solutions to incentive

traps'. Hating an aberrant behavior also compels one to hate all icons

(including shrines and idols) associated with that behavior. That would have

been an ideal topic to discuss. The panel had a member from three major

religious faiths and this would have provided all an opportunity to reflect

into the syncretization of religious order, why India has been the natural

abode of this syncretization, and what can be done to replicate this process in

other places. But instead of broadening the scope of this discussion, Dr.

Rajagopal set the stage by focusing on just the most extreme of `Hindu

response', in isolation. The scope of the discussion was limited to just one

event; the panelists took the freedom of deconstructing and expanding that

event without even a cursory reference to the cause or the background. There

was no reference to the events and circumstances leading to that response, or

the parallels of such response in other faiths and dispensation. The timing of

the screening too is significant, reminding all that the WTC bombing and Buddha

razing Talibans have company in other religions. Indians, mostly of the Sikh

community have suffered a backlash after being wrongfully identified and

associated with the Muslim community after the Sept 11 bombings. It is

impossible for an American to discern the subtle differences in the appearance,

accent and behavior of a Wahaabi fundamentalist from a South Asian Hindu.

Efforts such as Dr. Rajagopal's will identify Hindutva as part of the thread

that spawns the culture of demolition, and provoke retaliation, so far directed

towards

Waahabism. Is that what Dr? Rajagopal wants? Speakers in the panel did not

exercise caution/respect treading on religious feelings of Hindus, they focused

on the diversity in Hindu thought as chasm/differences (showing the Hindu as a

Tamil pot worshipper or a Kashmiri Brahmin) and questioned the very existence

of Hindu identity, then stepped back to identify the resurgent Hindu

consciousness as consumerism. They went on to castigating organizations

working tirelessly to educate and uplift the poorest segments of Indian

society, assailing the efforts of Hindu Organizations VHP-A to operate schools

in India, questioning the fund raising and contribution of American Hindus.

Dr. Raza Ali Mir called Hinduism a `contested space'. It really is, and the

troika

of Reza Ali, Val Daniel and Rajagopal with their own ideology contesting for

this space called Hinduism, they are really like the Clovis people debating on

the distribution rights and strategy to bring down the last Mammoth. That the

venue is a museum makes it even more ironic, the other behemoths of the

Aztecs, Sumeria, Greece, and Persia can now be found only in museums. Events

like this, brings into question the credibility of institutions and individuals

sponsoring such events. Should a government institution be someone's platform to

trample on the feelings and sensitivity of a gentle minority? Should it screen

movies considered malicious and slanderous by a large section? NYU's efforts

have always been to highlight the contributions of all threads in American

Diaspora, and coming from a pluralistic society we respect and share traditions

that strengthens the diversity of the American life. Hindus have been a very

hardworking, law abiding, patriotic community contributing positively in all

spheres of American life from healthcare to education and industry. There are

several challenges faced by someone of Indian origin as he/she works his/her

way up in academia/industry. There is the feeling of missing close relations

including parents, the challenges of surviving the difficult immigration

process, and the challenges of moving forward in job and society, after

overcoming the disadvantages of being a person of color and accent.

Patwardhan's movie and discussions moderated by Dr. Rajgopals' will add one

more to this list of handicaps.

It will facilitate a prejudice against their religious beliefs and social

conduct and eventually destroy the delicate ecology of tolerance and respect of

others, so characteristic of American society. Communist threat to Bharat!

According to intelligent people Communism and secularism are two sides of the

same coin to destroy Hindus and Hinduism on the whole.Communist portray being

pro- Bharat but they are the biggest anti - national they have for years

resorted to bogus voting and now have gone a step ahead by legalizing illegal

immigrants (Bangladeshi's) in the country see the example of Assam a total

change in demographics where the

legal populations have now become minorities. The same is being done by the

Congress turning a blind eye to the Bangladeshi's entering India. An example of

this is the posh suburb of Mumbai Bandra where the local MLA has gone ahead and

constructed row houses in Bandra Reclamation below the Bandra -Worli bridge to

legalize all the illegal Bangladeshi's so as to never lose an election.It is

high time this topic of Communist and Congress attitude be exposed and a

movement to impose a legal immigration bill to deport any person having

overstayed his visa or is without right to reside in India be chucked out.

Finally a word on the overseas Indian Passport while an Indian of Indian origin

born in India after 1950 can avail of this facility the restriction imposed upon

him/her is that he/she cannot be a member of parliament nor the legislature nor

can he anvil of employment in Government offices. This is total hypocrisy

whilst a person of foreign origin can acquire Indian passport and become even

the Prime Minister of the country this restriction needs to be overthrown.

=============================

How low will we go? Check out Messenger’s low PC-to-Phone call rates.