A Case Against the “Hindu Left”

Uncategorized, , , , ,

Subsequent to our preceding article on why the “Hindu Left” is an Oxymoron by Morons, it consequently became apparent that a methodical deconstruction of the origin & nature of this proposed political alignment would be required. This incipient movement by the insipid is neither something entirely new nor something entirely native.

To understand precisely why this re-igniting of the Left-Right dichotomy in the Hindu/Indic body politic is so dangerous, we will have to study the history of Socialism and Communism, which colour the connotation of “Left”, whether those ideologies are publicly professed or not.

A Case against the “Hindu Left”

The Case against the “Hindu Left”, an inchoate social media movement numbering in single digits, necessarily begins by studying the history behind not only it, but also the political ideologies that are intended to be revived by it. The funny thing about many socialist/communist revolutions is that they don’t always state upfront that their “Revolution” is meant to bring about Communism. After all, totalitarian forms of politics centrally and oppressively controlling every aspect of the citizenry isn’t exactly appealing. Vague calls for “Revolution” by label-less “Revolutionaries”, on the other hand, catch the interest of the disenchanted and disaffected. If things aren’t working, much simpler to just tear it all down.

Therefore, to properly understand exactly what the implications of a putative “Hindu Left” are, one must first study the history of this nebulous concept of “Leftism”.

A Brief History of “Leftism”

As with many phrases, labels, and typologies, concepts are not only purposefully opaque, but origins are often obscure and inapplicable to other contexts. As discussed by many intellectuals, the term Leftism originates in circa Reign of Terror Revolutionary France. It came to embody not only peasant interest or democracy & socialism, but also anti-clericalism. Hence our point in our previous article about how the inchoate Hindu Left’s demonisation of Hindu “mercantiles” will invariably be followed by demonisation of Hindu clericals. The bloody reign of terror in Revolutionary France also shows memetics affiliated with words such as “Revolution” and “Social Justice” and “Classless society”. The radical republicanism of France was soon followed by the even more virulent concept of socialism.

Often couched in literal utopian terms such as “utopian-socialism”, the origins and definitions of socialism are somewhat nebulous—likely by design. Though socialism, and some assert even communism, predates Marx, he and his associate/sponsor/sugar daddy Friedrich Engels would give these concepts a life and memeplex of their own. With the publication of the Communist Manifesto in 1848, the ground was paved for history’s bloodiest political movement. The pen truly is mightier than the sword.

“In the later 1830s and 1840s the German-born Marx was as obsessed with the leg-acy of 1789 as any French intellectual, and he even planned to write the revolution’s history.” [2, 17] Thus Marx was plainly inspired by the French Revolution, showing the bloody inheritance of not only Marxian Communism, but even Napoleonic liberalism. The Reign of Terror (and the later Red Terror of Bolshevik Russia) are the norm, not the exception.

Though the more famous (and more successful) October Revolution of Russia is well-known today, there were two other months where “Revolutionaries” attempted to overturn the established order. First there were the Decembrists (of December Revolution fame in 1825). These pre-Marx “Revolutionaries” were in fact inspired by the “classical liberalism” of Post-Revolution Napoleonic France. This shows not only the etiology of socialism, but also the nature of even “classical liberalism” in overturning order and setting society aflame. It may be difficult to digest in the present time, even up until a few years ago, but it is worth considering. Along with this was the February Revolution of 1917 that resulted in Tsar Nicholas’ abdication, which immediately preceded the October Revolution in the same year. This is important because one sees the perpetual demands that are a part of perpetual revolution. As one will see later on with Critical Theory, it’s not about achieving objectives or even solving society’s problems, but applying a method. It’s the method that unites disparate objectives and motivations to form an overarching Revolution.

Ironically, Russia was considered the least likely candidate for successful Revolution by Marxists as it was not a fully developed capitalist/bourgeois society. Long considered semi-feudal, due to the only recent abolition of serfdom, Russia (which became the USSR under Lenin) was ill-positioned to implement Marx’s theory. Nevertheless, primarily due to the 5 year plans of Stalin, a massive and inhuman industrialisation drive took place. Though considered partially successful, the human toll was terrible. Above all, certain difficult facts also were suppressed.

Food productivity (meaning the ability to generate greater amounts of food) was actually higher on smaller privately-owned plots of land than on large collectivised farms. Industrialisation partially succeeded, but Soviets were barely able to feed themselves. For all the talk, Marxist theory did not deliver—but the person who discovered this in totalitarian socialist (sorry, I mean communist) Russia, was summarily shot. Incidentally, he had been arguing that the small farmer was not a “capitalist”. As we can see from our own “Hindu Left”, it’s a slippery slope with mercantiles, with mathas and small farms also being labeled so—as political expedience demands.

The spread of Communism into China (with its Maoism and Cultural Revolution), and Post-World War II, into Eastern Europe is well known. Various movements to assert even independence from Russian domination, such as in Czechoslovakia and Hungary, were summarily crushed. Moderate Socialists were displaced in Afghanistan, eventually setting the stage for the rise of the even more abominable Taliban (also showing how the “Left” and “Right” feed off each other, first eliminating true alternatives (such as the Afghan Monarchy) before falling upon each other).

Perhaps Cuba offers the most interesting case. As is typically the case with communists, they usually don’t begin by pursuing true Communism. It’s usually something more innocuous. But eventually, due to the requirements of expedience and pressures from big brother Mother Russia, Cuba went communist. That is the danger of any “Left Movement”. It starts off as one thing, but whether in France, Russia, China, or even Cuba, it eventually ends up another.

India, of course, is no stranger to ‘Leftism’. The very mention of the word conjures up images of not only the anti-national CPI (M) of “China’s Chairman is our Chairman” fame, but also the brutal Naxalites, originating from Bengal’s Naxalbari. Corporate interests have a pre-Independence History in India (the British East India Company, after all, was a Multi-national Corporation). Therefore, it is possible to oppose corporate/imperialist exploitation without allying with Leftist/Naxal movements. That’s the true meaning of Swadeshi (desa Dharma, which opposes not only corporatism and mercantilism, but also foreign imperialism).

Regardless, while links can and are made to the Ghadar “Revolutionary” movement and even great Independence fighters & veer-balidanis such as Bhagat Singh, it is Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose who has come to represent the Left’s greatest impact on India. Rather than an extensive bio, here are key insights into Neta ji’s vision for India, often in his own words.

[3, 116]
It’s quite apparent, Netaji was not content merely with liberating India through his “Revolution”, but had every intention to use his powers under Socialist Authoritarianism to “mould farmers and workers according to socialism“. In short, rather than simply attaining independence and restoring a traditional Indic polity with some changes, his purpose was to change the very nature of Indic society itself. The desire to implement such ideas is seen in his own proposed solution.

[4]

Many would then argue that Nehru (hardly a profile in Dharmic leadership) also desired to establish “dams as the temples of modern India” and aimed to establish secularism in a religious country. True, but whatever asinine policies Nehru pushed through, they were done so in a parliamentary manner with some attempt at consensus. Opposition had at least some hope of legal or constitutional recourse. Nehru himself also was an advocate of democracy and individualism.  Even if we think of them as both extensions of western liberalism, an elected socialist democrat is certainly less oppressive than a socialist authoritarian dictator.

Rather than turn to Dharma as his guiding political philosophy, it appears Neta ji had other philosophies in mind.

Would Subhas Chandra Bose have been a Lenin or a Stalin? Or perhaps a ‘kindly’ Benito Mussolini? Those who fancy dictators and dictatorships should consider the body count they also come with.

Ideologies of “Leftism”

As discussed in the previous section, the etiology of “Leftism” is itself rooted in the reactionary. That is, it is premised more about reacting against an existing order, be it feudalism or industrialised capitalism. That is why it targets specific classes to generate a class-war. Ironically, many “socialists” expressly chase after utopian ideals, because utopia actually means “nowhere”. Because such a workers’ paradise is possible nowhere, perpetual revolution becomes the only way forward. Hence the war against “mercantiles”, then “clericals”, then “aristocrats”.

Aristocracy does mean “rule of the best”—the problem is, it’s become associated with degenerate idiots from Bollywood. But the question of the best is premised not on the basis of nepotism, genetics or assorted luxury perversions the film industry is known for, but historically, premised on virtue (Dharma).

It was the most virtuous who had the right to rule. It was why whatever the legalities of the succession crisis of Hastinapura, the matter should have been settled the moment the question of “who is the most virtuous” came up. This need not be read as justification for monarchy, but rather an explanation of what aristocracy meant and means in the first place. Even American Revolutionary Thomas Jefferson spoke of a “natural aristocracy”. This is because the American concept of Revolution was something quite different than the one envisioned by Marx—and also communism proper hadn’t been invented and popularised yet.

De Tocqueville asserted that Lawyers were the natural aristocrats in the United States. The legal profession is one not premised on birth, but on qualification (specifically passage of the bar exam, and ideally, earning a Law Degree). One possibility for a Dharmic Polity would reorganise varnashrama dharma along qualification lines rather than pure birth lines—with individual merit being premised on the virtue (rather than coaching centre/genetic network based “merit”)—and banning birth-based “untouchability”, which discriminates against whole communities of Hindus. Whether one agrees or not, it is at least some viable solution that preserves both freedom and dignity.

That is the Danger of the Hindu Left and the case against the Hindu Left. “The desire to turn unique human beings into identical socialist bricks explains why socialist regimes are often totalitarian [or authoritarian in Subhas Chandra Bose’s case]—because it is the only way they can make a serious attempt to achieve their aims. The socialist obsession with equality has always been at war with the division of labor and knowledge that comes naturally” [1, 32]

If varnashrama dharma (misnomer: caste) is a key part of Vedic Dharma, then the Hindu Left will forever be at war with “the division of labor”. Perpetual Revolution is built into the Hindu Left concept.

“Karl Marx, the most famous of socialism’s found-ing fathers, harshly condemned the division of labor and the inequality it produced, and sought to elimi-nate it precisely in order to destroy existing societies so that they could be replaced by presumed Commu-nist utopias. Marx and Marxian socialists sought (and seek) to use the coercive powers of government to stamp out all human differences, differences that Marx himself called a “contradiction” of the socialist ideal.” [1, 37]

The fundamental problem with socialism that in its obsession with Inequity it promotes Iniquity.

“Socialism can lead to the ‘end of truth,’ as Hayek called it, because socialists believe in indoctrinating people into ‘The Truth’. This is why socialists regimes have made us familiar with ‘reeducation camps’ and rigid, totalitarian ideological conformity. Socialists believe that there are no legitimate, alternative view-points. Socialists’ propaganda must dominate the educational system and the mass media so that, in Hayek’s words, ‘a pseudoscientific theory becomes part of the official creed’ which ‘directs everybody’s actions.” [1, 58]

Finally, India is a Truth-based society. It’s national motto is, not for nothing, Satyameva Jayate.  It is the land of Satya Harishchandra who would not tell a lie, and Lord Rama, who ensured his father’s promise did not become a lie. Even when Krishna made Yudhisthira tell one small lie, the purpose was to protect the greater Truth. And even here, Yudhisthira accepted the sin associated with telling even a ‘white lie”. Red lies, on the other hand, are an whole other story.

“’Truth’in a socialist society is not something to be debated; it is mandated and enforced by the Social-ist regime, from which there is no alternative and no appeal.Once socialist ideology takes over and respect for actual truth is destroyed, wrote Hayek, then all morals are assaulted because all morality is based on respect for the truth.” [1,58]

Now Hayek and his Austrian school are no Saints. His Free-market Capitalism theories have also come under the scanner, not only in the aftermath of the 2008 Financial Crisis, but even through the association with Chile’s Pinochet. Again we see how LW and RW feed off each other, but capitalism can be critiqued at another time. If communism through Marx provides the most accessible critique of capitalism, capitalism through Hayek does the same for communism. Hence Hayek.

Irrespective, the following should now be clear:

“Socialists, of all varieties, tolerate no opposition, allow no competing authorities, and are at continual war with individuals, families, private organizations, churches, businesses, and local and regional authori-ties that might oppose or interfere with their grand vision for reordering society. Socialists believe in total control. They want to control you.” [1, 76]

But if a “Hindu Left” can be packaged and posited by those who promote the achievements of the “Revolutionary Socialist Party”, perhaps a brief overview of the various forms of Socialism is in order.

Types of Socialism

The most fundamental characteristic of socialism is an obsessive commitment to the creation of an egalitarian society, based on solidarity and collectivism. There is a general drive to remake the world, usually in their own image, by controlling the means of production. The term itself is thought to date back to Revolutionary France, with the first type:

Utopian-Socialism: Where has it ever been applied successfully? “Nowhere?”. It is a theory of social transformation of society, solving various issues in the vaguest of terms with some nebulous notion of universal equality. Etienne Cabet, Henri Saint Simon, and Charles Fourier were all utopian-socialists focused on revolutionising society. Saint-Simon agitated against idlers (such as the nobility, and surprise… the clergy). He was a French aristocrat himself. Self-loathing socialist hypocrisy did not start with Engels.

Anarchism: This particular form should send shivers down the spine of any WWI buff. It was an anarchist who assassinated Franz Ferdinand setting off the ‘Great War’. Though it does cover a wide range of views, it is embodied by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and Mikhail Bakunin. Interestingly, Proudhon was anti-feminist, anti-homosexual, and very puritanical, but was also anti-property—securing his socialist credentials, despite his hatred of government. Bakunin’s main disagreement with Marx and Engels was on centralisation and on whether the Russia was the most likely candidate for Revolution, because its peasantry was more oppressed than factory workers in the West.

Communism (International Socialism): “a political system in which men live cooperatively and hold property in common“. [2, xxii] It offers a critique of capitalism putatively to provide a replacement. Its major proponent, often termed originator, is Karl Marx. He provided a simplistic analysis of history based on a simplistic linear progression from slave society, to feudalism, to capitalism, to socialism, to communism. Marx himself insulted Hinduism, likely resulting in the deep-seated hatred Indian Marxists, Communists, and Leftists have for Hindu Dharma.

Maoism: A form of Communism based on the stipulations of Mao Tse-Tung. He developed a theoretical justification for the establishment of Communist power in non-industrial societies based on the backs of peasants and the petty bourgeoisie. Interestingly, Capitalists are known above all for turning small businessmen (petty bourgeoisie)into impoverished workers, creating a built-in base of alienation. Mao is also significant for his prioritisation of National over International Communism.

Fascism (National Socialism): Contrary to most people who view Fascism as the polar opposite of Socialism, it is in fact a form of socialism (a middle class socialism rather than a working class socialism). It is an internal dichotomy within socialism itself. In the communist form, workers take control directly and establish a dictatorship. In fascism, corporate interests capture the government and again ensure specific, sweeping policies are pushed through and concentrate resources in the hands of a few.  Above all, like communism, it establishes a tyrannical centralised bureaucracy that eliminates power at the state and local levels.

“fascism is just another form of socialism” [1, 13]

Social Democracy: Most often characterised by Sweden and Swedish Social Democracy. In true Bastiat fashion, the regulative tyranny of the Bureaucrat replaces the tyranny of the Politburo.

…ostensibly what Indira Gandhi had in mind when she inserted “Secular” and “Socialist” into the Indian Constitution. Interestingly, she later suspended democracy to establish the “Socialist” Authoritarian Emergency in India.

No matter what the form, all you need to know is that 100 million people have died from Socialism. [1, 59]

Affiliated Forms of Marxism

Feminism: Though not a form of government (yet…), it seems to have taken on elements of perpetual revolution through its eventual pursuit of not only political equality but ostensibly biological equality. Interestingly, Friedrich Engels (sugar daddy of Karl Marx) could be considered the First modern Feminist due to his express desire to emancipate women through the destruction of private property. While the downsides and flipsides to Feminism are discussed here, the implications of Radfem should be jarring to all.

Critical Theory & Cultural Marxism:

Critical Theory refers to the Frankfurt School of Marxism. It sought to effect cultural change through “social critique” and reexamination through the Marxist method. It is deeply rooted in Marxist notions of historical materialism. This arose out of Marx & Engels’ criticism of utopian-socialism’s inability to deal with the present based on use of the past.

Study of History is Important. But how it’s done, and how it’s even defined also matters. Those who mock the Indian approach to Itihaasa and life as “supernatural” deserve to be questioned on whether they are really Hindu at all. After all, all they seem to be doing is merely passing off the etic as the emic. Within the Marxian theory of history itself is a theory for change, and ultimately, the seeds for Revolution.

History to them is mere agit-prop.

This list is of course not exhaustive. But it is meant to show just how many-headed this Hydra truly is. It will also help readers understand the actual origin behind the “Hindu Left”, and why it is simply repackaging old (poisonous) wine in a new (saffron) bottle.

Origin of the “Hindu Left”

The origin of the “Hindu Left” is a curious case, much like that of Benjamin Button. It is an old concept that seems to be getting only younger with time.

Although many twitterati seem to be under the impression that the term originated with 3 “incorruptibly incorruptible chankian” uber-patriots of bose-ian Hindu dispensation, the overt call for a Hindu Left starts with a publicly “out”, formerly Christian, currently cultural marxist lesbian who inserts Freudian interpretations into Hindu texts. While alternative lifestyles shouldn’t be an issue in discussing the origin of such ideas, there has been a noted pattern of individuals with such an orientation seeking to change the traditional interpretation of Hindu texts (often with videshi or evangelical sponsorship).

Ruth Vanita is a well-known author of books on queer studies, specifically in the Indian context. Interestingly enough, it is she who appears to have been the origin of this (polish the gold trumpets…) clarion call for a “Hindu Left”. On what basis, this is not clear. Though Dharma does not persecute people of alternative lifestyles it does not promote such lifestyles either. So if not Dharma, what could such an ostensibly “Hindu” Left entail? Here is an illuminating section from her Post:

“No one seems surprised that Hinduism is perhaps the only religion in the world today that is supposed to have a Right but not a Left. In Europe, the US, Canada, and in South American countries, there is a secular Right and Left, and also a Christian Right and Left. While the Catholic orthodoxy opposes abortion and homosexuality, there are many vociferous Catholic groups that support both. There is an organization of gay Catholics called Dignity. Almost every major Protestant sect has a left wing and a right wing. The tradition of organized Christian feminism dates back to the nineteenth century and many earlier Christian writers are clearly proto-feminist. Today, the secular, that is, atheist or agnostic, left routinely works and organizes in cooperation with the religious left.1 Both constitute a visible presence in left-wing demonstrations. Gay Pride parades, for instance, always have substantial contingents of gay Christians and Jews. Similarly, in most Islamic countries, there is a Muslim Right and a Muslim Left. In India, however, there is almost no Hindu organized Left.2 What does this mean and why is it so? Does it mean that there are no leftists who are practising Hindus? Not at all. It is well known that even in their most militant days, Calcutta’s communists migrated en masse to Durga Puja celebrations, and I personally know Marxist academics at Delhi University who are pious Hindus at home, regularly fasting and performing puja. But at the level of public theorizing and organizing, this aspect of their lives remains invisible and unspeakable. The number of Indian thinkers today who try to integrate religious and leftist thinking can be counted on the fingers of one hand – Ashis Nandy and Ramchandra Gandhi are among the very few who make this attempt with Hinduism.”

Ah, yes, Ashis Nandy, famed worthy of Leftism parodied here, is making an attempt at concocting a “Hindu Left”. Interestingly enough, the unofficial bio of Mr. Nandy shows his affiliation with the Bengali Christian community, despite being a “non-believer”.  So these are the eminence grises, the delicate geniuses behind the “brilliant” idea of “Hindu Leftism—an oxymoron apparently originated by morons who aren’t even originally Hindu.

Naysayers may argue that there are many “sincere conversions into Hinduism”, and that may be true, but for both to come from an avowedly Abrahamic background and then seek to influence the Hindu body politic does strike one as more than a bit convenient. This is the case all-the-more so when one realises its aim at merely replicating the Abrahamic experience of Left vs Right, in India. Irrespective, one thing is clear, despite the Hindu label, based on this excerpt, the Hindu Left is meant to be non-Dharmic in orientation. Indeed, this is apparent in one of the concluding lines of her message:

If more liberal and leftist Hindus begin to acknowledge their Hindu identity and speak in defense of Hindu heritage, this can only strengthen, not weaken, the secular left.

Is this the real definition of “Hindu Left”. Will they bring the “true socialism” that the USSR and PRC failed to provide?

So the Hindu Left is merely a roundabout means to “strengthen, not weaken, the secular left.” How lovely. After all the hard work of cultural Hinduism exerting itself in the last 30 years, a plan b for the secular left to impose its politics on India has emerged in the form of, drumroll please, the ‘Hindu Left’.

In any event, Dr. Ruth’s message was then followed up by a LiveMint Article by G.Sampath, who mentioned and echoed Vanita.

This brings us to the present Bose Brigade.

Eels can be slippery animals, frequently denying affiliations where they plainly exist.

Code words and Catchphrases include such common bon mots such as revolutionary, solidarity, worker vs bourgeoisie, peasant vs mercantile, solidarity, etc.

While the modus operandi of this triumvirate was discussed in our previous article, the first triumvir seemed to have picked up the baton (or proverbial hammer and sickle) from Ruth Vanita just after the LiveMint article was published. Her ‘nationalist credentials’ were established with her “timely” support for Narendra Modi to speak at UPenn. She soon allied with like-minds, including the previously mentioned slippery eel, and one ironically Kalhana-quoting dushtamatya. Opportunism, after all, needs no ideology, only a means to (academic) self-promotion. From there, she would then have the foundation from which to lead an effort to revive Leftism under a rebranded Hindu Left.

All these personalities and the movements or parties they were a part of speak of revolutionaries, socialism, and humanism—even if they don’t expressly support communism. The Bengali Rosa Luxemburg (the original one was a ‘revolutionary’ Marxist who led an abortive ‘revolutionary uprising’ centered around the German Communist Party), seems to pretend that Revolutionary is some innocuous, ideology free term.

Colour Revolutions are, of course, not a new concept. There was a “Cedar Revolution” in Lebanon, an “Orange Revolution” in Ukraine, and even a “Saffron Revolution” in Myanmar. What makes them concerning is not necessarily the degree of violence associated with them or the ideology, but rather, the questions of extra-national financing. That is the reason why any call for “Revolution” or “Revolutionaries” must be carefully examined. This is because any overturning of the existing political order (krama) benefits external actors (paradesis). Matsya Nyaya naturally breeds Marxists. Dharma, on the other hand, is about upholding order (Rta), which is the expression of Truth (Satya).

But for historical materialists such as this maven, anything dharmic or spiritual is invariably supernatural. Even fellow Bengali, Sri Aurobindo, does not escape critique from our resident Bengali Chauvinist.

Make no mistake, the Hindu Left is not some haphazard movement that came together by coincidental and happy circumstance. It is a concerted push to derail the return of cultural Hindus to political Dharma proper.

A Case against the “Hindu Left”

classvclass

Bhodrolok?

Cultural Marxism is a pestilence because it deconstructs (aka tears down) the status quo without offering a viable alternative. Sound familiar? It doesn’t take responsibility for providing solutions that can actually work, or for building a “pro-Hindu” party beyond the BJP—no, that would mean actual accountability. It’s why the brilliant idea to themselves work to build a transparent platform and new nationalist party never occurs to these delicate geniuses. Delicate genius can’t be bothered to see if its theories actually work in real life. Hence the need for simplistic agitprop, implicit support for Socialist Revolution, and explicit calls for a nebulous Hindu Left (meant to actually strengthen the Secular Left).

Nationalism is nothing new for socialism. As the Chinese and Vietnamese have shown, nationalism is nothing new for communism either. Socialists have in fact called for combining it with other traditions (such as the Hindu tradition) to make it and Marx relevant again.

Identity politics is nothing new to Marxism, Socialism, or Communism—Revolutionary or otherwise. Engels (the other half of the Marx-Engels Communist Manifesto) himself argued for the ‘emancipation of women’ through the elimination of private property (the Sex and the City lifestyle is apparently much more accessible if Carrie Bradshaw’s Manohlo Blahniks belong to all women…). Though the American Civil Rights movement featured many who drew upon the philosophy of Jefferson and Madison rather than Marx, a number of Marxist/Communist radicals would coopt or even spearhead anti-racist movements (sadly, the term racism itself owes its origin to the despicable Trotsky, who spoke the language of racial equality but had no respect for the sanctity of human life, unborn or adult).

And the close association of Cultural Marxism with the RadFem and LGBT movements needs no introduction. If all these movements could be co-opted (or even engineered), why can’t an Identity politics for Hindus? After all, all the requirements are there:

“Revolutionary”

“Socialist”

“Solidarity”

Propagandists vilifying ‘Vaishyas’ 1 day can switch to demonising Brahmins the next. Danger of casteism: scapegoating is transferrable. Today someone else, tomorrow you.

The reason is because to openly tout communism or even Socialist Authoritarianism would immediately alienate important and specific sections of the population. It is far easier to speak in vague terms about “revolutionaries” and “left” or even “hindu left” without providing an alternative to the common man. Thus, gradualism and communism are not strangers, but go hand in hand. Like certain religious extremists, they begin to assert that the problem was not too much socialism, but rather “not enough socialism or not real socialism”. The problem with socialism is that if you keep adding more and more socialism you eventually end up with communism. That is why socialist gradualists must be kept at arm’s length or even ostracised (along with their pinhead recommendations)—the end goal of these leftist movements is communism, plain and simple. They just can’t spell it out for you…yet.

Revolutionary martyrs such as Che in Cuba are invoked in a familiar template celebrating the “Revolutionary Spirit” and “Revolutionary Psyche”. Proponents will obviously draw comparisons with the American Revolution—but communism had not been created yet. The term Communist doesn’t even always appear in Party names.

The Communists Party in Russia formed around the “Social-Democratic Labour Party” (Bolshevik itself means ‘majority’), East German Communists relied on the Socialist Unity Party, Cambodia’s Khmer Rouge had the Kampuchean People’s Revolutionary Party, and Poland had the Polish United Worker’s Party

Would the same have resulted with Neta ji’s All-India Forward Bloc or the with the Bose Brigade’s affinity for the still extant Revolutionary Socialist Party? Perhaps circling back to the origin of the Hindu Left would be helpful here.

“Indian academic Ruth Vanita posed the same question in an essay in Seminar magazine (2002) , titled Whatever happened to the Hindu Left?”

“What all this means is that there is still a huge political vacuum – a need gap, in free market terms – for the Hindu Left. A political formation that combines a genuinely Hindu religiosity – marked by pluralism and a respect for minorities – with an economic agenda oriented towards employment-generation rather than creating “an ideal investment climate”, is bound to resonate with an electorate tired of having to choose between Tweedledum and Tweedledee at the national level.”

Most jarring is the history of appropriating unrelated Hindu Dharmic figures into the Hindu Left, starts from the very beginning.

“And the Hindu Left has a long and worthy tradition – going back to the Bhakti movement, with a continuous lineage all the way from the Nayanmars and Alwars to Kabir, Meera Bai, Surdas, Tulsidas, Namdev, Tukaram, Tyagaraja, and many others right till the arrival of Ramakrishna Paramahansa in the 19th century.”

Apparently Saints like Tulsidas and Thyagaraja are now Hindu Left “Revolutionaries” too!

Everyone can be a Revolutionary (ideological consistency need not be required!). Only a Hindu label and a leftist politburo or a socialist utopianism, and voila, a new party of political interests dedicated to the destruction of traditional culture!

As such, the call for a Hindu Left is nothing new. Indeed, there appears to be a concerted agenda in pushing this theory.

Just as the “Hindu right” has been created to trot out Friedmanesque, Reagan-lite, objectivist drivel all in the name of “animal spirits” and the “miracle of capitalism”, so too is the other face of this Liberal Janus being debuted recreating the Left within the Hindu body politic

Interestingly, Hindus have (almost from the beginning) recognised it for the oxymoron that it is.

Understanding the genesis of this term is even more important. Ruth Vanita is well-known for her mangling of Indic Epics in order to advocate for alternative lifestyles (such as the one she leads).

But since the days of Manu, same-gender relations have not been advocated. Whether or not they should or shouldn’t be criminalised in modern India is another matter, but pretending as though Dharma protected or even advocated same-gender relations is specious reasoning at its finest. Ruth Vanita, Saswati Sarkar and their “Hindu Left” embody everything that Dharma is not.

One need not speculate whether these 3 individuals of the Bose triumvirate lead such alternative lifestyles (hence their advocacy of “the Hindu Left”). Nevertheless, it is important that gullible Hindus easily falling for slogans, sloganeering, and slow-witted ideologies understand the ramifications of “Revolutionary” changes to society that would be brought by an ostensible “Revolutionary Socialist Party” or oxymoronic “Hindu Left”.

The Hindu Left is merely the agenda of liberalism in newly stitched garb. Old (poisoned) wine in a new (saffron) bottle. Once upon a time “classical Liberalism” appeared to stand for something. It has now become apparent that liberalism is nothing but libertinism—a tool for the destruction of society and social morays.

Conclusion

If India is to remain the Land of Dharma,it must reject not only the oxymoronic”Hindu Left” of Ruth Vanita and the Bose Brigade, but must reject Liberalism (which is nothing but progressive initiation into Libertinism). All of these foreign ‘philosophies’ ultimately, like secularism, have their root in Protestantism. Do tell us, ye revolutionaries, if the “Hindu Left” project fails, will you bring about “Hindu Protestantism” next? Inquiring minds wish to know.

Is it any wonder the leader of the Bose Brigade called for the prostitution of women (royal or otherwise). Despite their undeserved arrogance on history, they even got the history wrong, as the Chachnama story of the Sindhi Princesses is considered apocryphal, and no “seduction” is required if one is sent to be a sex slave.  As one can see here, Socialist countries place no value on the honour and dignity of women—who were degraded as sexual objects by men…and often other women. Is this the “Hindu” society that these “revolutionaries’ wish to recreate? That is why the word dharma/dharmic generally only appears in their dialogue sarcastically. Hinduism not being our word, it is only natural that these phoreign-sponsored “revolutionaries” would degrade our Dharma. Bhadralok is of course a sacred term—but Dharma? Who needs that? Since when is Dharma ‘revolutionary’?

And that is precisely the point. Dharma is not revolutionary, because Dharma itself seeks to uphold order Rta, which is the expression of Satya. The order may be adjusted to time and place, but the fundamental Saamaanya Dharma is common to all, and has a common interest of preserving Truth (in all ages). In contrast, Communists and Socialists are famous not only for their political assassinations, but also for their assassination of Truth. Can such a people be trusted to uphold Dharma, Rta, and Satya in their soon to be revived Revolutionary Socialist Party?

Further, as Gen. Bakshi has recently asserted, Jadhavpur University (alma mater of Madame Blatavsky-Lenin) is a hotbed of leftist ideology endangering India’s integrity and national interests. It’s unsurprising therefore that the advocates of this “Hindu Left”-Ruth Vanita rebrand would have connections to such an institution.

The recent deaths during the post-Dera Sacha Sauda ruling are truly tragic. The lives of people of all castes and communities matter and should be treated with dignity. Use of force must be restrained save in the gravest of circumstances, as there are non-lethal methods of crowd control as well. Sensitivities to the Dalit community in particular are crucial not just to Hindu society’s future, but to the true principles of Dharma.

But the reality is, rather than laying the groundwork for a genuine Dharma paksha that allows each community and region to protect national interests, this triad is blazing an ideological trail for a re-invigourated Revolutionary Socialist Party. Despicably seeking to make hay out of the Dera rioting tragedy smacks of the worst sort of unashamed agitprop.

Socialism is mealymouthed and ambiguous enough for them to attempt to weasel out of the fundamentalist and tyrannical baggage accompanying communism and totalitarianism. And yet, their hero Subhas Chandra Bose himself advocated Socialist Authoritarianism. Is it therefore not logical to infer that they too are advocating the same? Naturally, our three (J)eeniuses (with a capital J) would presumably be on the politburo, dictating to “mercantile” (if any will be left), feudal, and clerical alike. The peasant, of course, would already have been easily fooled like the animals on Orwell’s farm. Because after all, no socialist society ever achieved perfectly equal, classless society. They only managed a “more equal” society. With various classes such as the “intelligentsia” forming to “guide” the worker and farmer alike.

Many people may be quick to aver that National Socialists in fact represent the Right rather than the Left. But this is why it’s called False Dichotomy. It’s a false choice between an International Socialism and National Socialism. The end result is still Socialism (itself a nebulous utopian concept that ensures those with the power have no accountability). Capitalism paves the path for oligopoly and monopoly, with Communism leading first to national expropriation then international expropriation, preferably by a suitable international body.

That is why both Leftist and Rightist rejects must be rejected. They both represent different brands of the same crummy product. The Hindu Left is simply creating a different starting point. While the Communist Party (Marxist) was very clear that “China’s Chairman is our Chairman”, the newly proposed “Hindu Left” merely mimics the original position of the Communist Party of India, in asserting the need for a Hindu Chairman. The Hindu Left still wants a Chairman, specifically a Socialist Authoritarian one.

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck. The “Hindu Left” is nothing but another hare-brained attempt to revive Socialism, except this time, rather than an anti-national socialism, the aim of these nitwits is a “National Socialism”. That is why their tactics, behaviour, & ill-conceived literature matches a certain Austrian circa 1920.

It has often been said that if fascism were to return, it would be in the guise of anti-fascism. Here is the face of the “hindu antifa”. Therein lies the problem with only focusing on “social justice”—such movements ignore the importance of other established aspects of Justice, such as forbidding crimes against humanity—whether in the name of socialism, etc. But when it’s socialism and social justice uber alles, it’s not simply Stalin vs Hitler, but Stalin & Hitler. What Hinduism, Hindu culture, or even Hindu dharma actually is risks becoming the sole purview of one man’s whims, beef-eater or otherwise.

That is the danger of super-imposing foreign typologies without regard for native philosophies. A square peg is force-fitted into a round hole, with predictable results. Contrary to critical theory, (Hindu) Poetry did not die with WWII and its accompanying atrocities. Hindu Philosophy was not debunked with the discrediting of the (European Christian) Enlightenment. And Hindus need not struggle to harmonise the material with the metaphysical.

Long ago, Acharya Chanakya spelt out the prime directives of Rajadharma in his Arthasastra. These are:

Raksha (Protection from External Threat)

Palana (Internal Law & Order)

Yogakshema (citizen well-being).

Of course, many self-appointed Subandhus believe themselves to be Chanakya and attempt to rule by proxy due to “authority”—ending up burnt like both. Ministers, as even Chanakya notes, are servants of the King. Raksha, Palana, and Yogakshema are the responsibilities of Kshatriya Dharma, and that core aspect of Kshatriya Dharma (Raja Dharma). Kshatriyas (by character, not necessarily birth) are not mere warriors, but traditional aristocrats who are responsible for protecting their people. This is the danger of separating the “intelligentsia’ from politico-military functions. Those who govern must understand the implications of the policies and even “political movements” that are being advocated.

The last remaining Hindu Kingdom in the world was disestablished this past decade in favour of a Nepali Left. Is the last remaining Hindu refuge in the world, which rejected Communist politics, in the cross-hairs via a new Hindu Left?

The opposite of an aristocracy (rule of the best) is kakistocracy (rule of the worst). If the original notion of aristocracy was rooted in virtue or Dharma, then it is only natural that kakistocracy be rooted in Adharma.

“Government becomes more and more a government of the worst, by the worst, and for the worst. That is what socialism delivers.”[1, 63]

Socialism is nothing but kakistocracy in a supposedly ‘non-racist, non-misogynist, non-homophobic, non-transphobic, and non-whatever else you can [insert here]” form. The worst sanctimoniously assume the moral high ground by highlighting discrimination against increasingly micro-minorities, despite the bureaucrat or politburo collective effectively rejecting morality. Theories of racism or ill-treating people of other races or backgrounds is indeed unethical. But there are greater crimes, such as mass murder, about which socialists have no compunction .

Ironically, even Communist government was not free of class. Most socialists don’t even claim to have eliminated inequality, only to have formed a more equal society with less ‘antagonism’ between classes. Workers and peasants remained two classes of society with the ‘Intelligentsia’ forming the main component of a third called ‘stratum’. So 3 classes to replace 4?

Hindu society has come along way from the various forms of discrimination. But if its systems have become associated with pejorative words such as “collaborator”, “hypocritical”, “greedy”, and keeping the “chote log” down, it is due to the fall of cultural and political elites from their own values. It is adherence to values that determines virtue in society. The path to correction is not jumping from the frying pan into the fire via Revolution.

The plight of the Dalit is better today and there is a path for young and talented Dalit boys and girls to rise to see their potential come to fruition and succeed alongside others with dignity. But is the path to ensuring this to all Dalits through internally-driven reform or externally-funded revolution? These are the questions right-thinking Hindus of all castes must ask.

False dichotomies are nothing new to socialists of all sorts. “Joseph Stalin, engineered a rhetorical/propaganda coup (with the help of the worldwide socialist movement) by repeating the notion that the only alternative to Russian socialism was fas-cism”. [1, 65]

Perhaps that is why the self-branding “Hindu Left” touts itself as the only alternative to the RW. Interestingly, elements of the Econ RW have also called for a ‘Hindu Left‘. But this conveniently ignores the fact that many Hindus vote for the BJP despite free market economics and despite the RSS, not because of them. Whatever the organizational relationship between the two, there is a clear Pro-Indic movement that wants nothing to do with the Sangh or Milton-Friedman minstrels.

After all, there is no centralised Church or Papacy in Sanatana Dharma. True culturo-spiritual (adhyatmik) authority lies  not with Nagpur, but in Dvaraka, Badrinath, Sringeri, Puri, and a panoply of other peethas, mathas, and even agraharas of different sampradayas. Each traditionally trained acharya is vedic voice of 1 by virtue of the deeksha and adhyapana they’ve undergone and the achara they are oath-bound to live. It is they who (together) clarify what traditional Vedic Dharma is, not Savarkar or even Swami Vivekananda for that matter. The sangh is merely a political organisation, whatever the relief work and social service of well-meaning karyakartas. That is the difference between RW “Hindutva” and actual Sanatana Dharma.

Thus, as we stated before, there is a clear basis for a proper Dharma paksha. A Contemporary Dharma paksha is what is required, not some anti-national left,  or now notionally nationalist hindu left vs a nationalist hindu right. A Civilizational Dharmic fight is what we face, and a pragmatic and Contemporary Dharma Paksha is what we need. One not rooted in rhetoric or foreign invention or repressive ritualism or hide-bound traditionalism, but one that recognises the exigencies of the time while remaining rooted in and protecting the tradition and those who live it. It is one that neither scapegoats specific varnas nor discriminates against specific Bharatiyas nor imposes foreign ideologies, but respects Hindus (and Bharatiyas of all backgrounds) while restoring and preserving Dharma.

Merely applying a saffron teeka onto Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose will not paint over the background of accompanying red. The end goal of Socialism is Communism. Those arguing that the BJP’s philosophy was termed “Gandhian Socialism” ignore three key points.

  1. Western Theory was the default characterisation of the time. Even until recently.
  2. The BJP and ostensibly Gandhian philosophy both support Democracy
  3. Subhas Chandra Bose not only favoured Socialist Authoritarianism, but expressly sought for something between Hitler’s Fascism and Stalin’s Communism

Many have assumed trappings of rajas without following true rajadharma, just as many have assumed trapping of Hinduism (as a mask for leftism) without following true Hinduism (more properly called Sanatana Dharma).

Nehru’s and Gandhi’s sins are well-known and deserve condemnation. Patel deserves fresh re-evaluation. The culture of hero worship itself should cease, and a culture of self-respect created rather than a perennial reliance on avatar-hood (genuine or otherwise). But Bose’s own words speak for themselves

And that is precisely the point. Both these totalitarian typologies of government, fascism and communism, are merely forms of socialist authoritarianism. The end goal of socialist authoritarianism is always in the end, totalitarian communism.

Socialism, Communism—and especially since 2008—Capitalism, have all become increasingly discredited systems of Political Economy. Whether it is Neo-Leftism or Neo-Liberalism, they all find their origin in Western Liberalism and ultimately Protestantism. But Hindus have their own basis for Economics and Political Economy (Arthasastra). Irrespective of the origin of Western Parliamentary Democracy, Ancient Hindus even had many forms of government, primarily  Rajya (monarchy) and Ganarajya (republic). The present Republic of India is called Bharat Ganarajya.

That is why the time has come for native Indic Systems inspired by native Indic Philosophies guiding native Indic Political Movements. Whether it is the Niti of Krishna, the Niti of Vidhura, the Niti of Chanakya, the Niti of Shivaji, or the Niti of Banda Bahadur Singh ji, there are many schools of Rajaniti in the Dharmic System of Governance: Rajadharma. Attempting to appropriate them into foolhardy rebranding movements is disingenuous in the least and despicable at the worst.

The time has come, not for Neo-Liberalism, Hindu Leftism,nor even Pseudo-Traditionalism, but rather, a Contemporary Dharma that treats with dignity all Bharatiya jatis, that preserves core tradition, but pragmatically faces the Exigencies of the Time under the civic mandates of Rajadharma:

Raksha, Palana, Yogakshema

References:
  1. DiLorenzo, Thomas J. The Problem with Socialism. Washington D.C.: Regnery. 2016
  2. Priestland, David. The Red Flag: A History of Communism. London: Penguin. 2009
  3. Bhalla, Praveen.The Life and Times of Subhas Chandra Bose. New Delhi: Ocean. 2016
  4. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Netaji-Subhas-Chandra-Bose-wanted-ruthless-dictatorship-in-India-for-20-years/articleshow/46980513.cms
  5. Newman, Michael. Socialism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford. 2005

Related Posts