Armin Navabi on Twitter started abusing Hindu goddess Maa Kaali few days ago for the very simple reason that as an Abrahamic, this is how he was supposed to denigrate Hindus but he did it with the cover of atheism. But the response of Leftists pretending to be the friend of Hindus (commonly known as Liberal Right) to such wretched act of denigration of our goddesses clearly shows that this group is ultimately an adversary of Hindus which needs to be attacked with all ferocity along with their atheistic kins from the Western world whom they essentially worship to seek recognition from them. I’ll elucidate the patters of response which we witnessed and how problematic they’re in the reality.
The first group of people includes specimens such as Kushal Mehra, Harsh Madhusudan, Abhijit Iyer-Mitra etc. who profess to be a Charvaka but have the audacity to define how our gods and goddesses should be defined along with their gunas. This group found that there is nothing wrong if Armin Nawabi found Maa Kali ‘sexy’ because they find Maa Kali having similar attribute as well. It also includes raita girls whose understanding of Hinduism can be written on the backside of a postcard but they assume that they know everything. First of all, to find Maa Kali sexy, one must not be a practicing Hindu who has never worshipped any of our goddesses. Amongst all the bhakts of Devi-s throughout the history, nobody could find that our Devi-s are sexy but if this is the sudden realization which dawns upon you, you’re a pathetic sick creature having your neck deeply buried in Freudian world of perverse sexuality. This group of people needs to shut up their mouth because you don’t have an iota of understanding of what you’re talking about.
A similar group of people believes that women in Ancient India roamed naked and indulged in orgies because we have nude sculptures on some of the temple walls. Ergo, if one desceibes Hindu goddesses as ‘sexy’ or ‘hot’, it shouldn’t cause any concern. Also, any attempt to enforce restriction on sexuality is an Abrahamic thing accentuated by Victorian morality. While I don’t want to dwell on the actual significance of such sculptures, J D Unwin in his seminal work ‘Sex and Culture‘ in which he studied all the major civilizations around the world including many tribal groups, he found that one of the important aspects of building civilization is to restrict the sexuality of its members so that they can focus on much important aspects of civilization building instead of being consumed by the single desire. Our Smriti-s lay down strict code of conduct when it comes to sexuality, and the projection of your libertine and hednoist thought on Ancient India is nothing more than an attempt to rationalize the current behaviour.
Bringing the dressing customs and habits even if they’re incorrect into the discussion, the intention is to obfuscate the issue. Whatever may be the dressing habits, there is clear separation between how a deity needs to be approached viz-a-viz any humans. The sexually suggesting epithets are strictly applied to the humans as the realm of sexuality is limited to human affairs in which gods are not included. If one uses similar epithet for a deity, it also implicitly means that the person harbours similar feeling for the deity which is not how the devotees approach and worship their deities.
Next comes the freedom of expression group which is the most reprehensible group amongst all them. They believe that they’ve the right to offend others even if they’re attacking objects which hold the highest significance for them but if they’re paid in kind by Hindus, they start showing themselves as victims of bullying and abuse which was done eventually by Armin Navabi as well. They also threaten Hindus that if you don’t take the punches lying down, they’ll double down the attack on you. Of course, it’s justified by saying how tolerant, pluralistic and open-minded Hinduism has been to the extent of saying that there is no rule in Hinduism at all. It’s very similar to the secularist argument when Hindus start acting in assertive manner, they’re reminded about how tolerant their religion is, which is otherwise considered grotesque and primitive on other occasions. Hindus won’t take such attempts of our Devi-s being denigrated without paying in kind and if this results in intensifying the attack, we are equally capable of retorting to that as well.
Next category of Hindus is what I call ‘Ostrich Hindus‘. Ostrich Hindus believe that if they ignore the attack on Hinduism and our deities, the aggressors will eventually decrease the intensity of their offence in the event of not getting attention. But they fail to understand that the truth is exactly opposite. If Hindus don’t act when they’re mocked and attacked, it only sends the signals that Hindus don’t take themselves seriously, are incapable of standing up, and unsure of protecting their Dharma. Such non-action provides incentive to the aggressors to further strengthen their attack as they’re facing no opposition whatsoever.
They justify their belief in the superior tactical value of non-action by saying that a response by Hindus will make them look intolerant who are incapable of taking criticism. However, this response makes us ask regarding the analysts and judges for whom we want to appear pacifists. This group includes the very atheists who launch the attack on Hinduism, Abrahamics, Leftists and Marxists. This entire group has launched institutional attack on Hindus through every means possible in the history, and still continues to do so. This group definitely wants meek and feeble Hindus who don’t act as it means no opposition for them to achieve the end of decimating Hinduism which they consider to be superstitious, patriarchal, misogynistic, oppressive, bigoted and violent. A society caring for getting the approval of enemy is probably the worst strategy.
Finally, an atheist can’t be a friend of Hindus. If you’ve swallowed the nonsense of being culturally Hindu, it’s as absurd as the position of spiritual but not religious. Hindu culture exists because Hindu Dharma exists. The day when Hindu Dharma doesn’t exist, Hindu culture will stop existing. If you’re a Hindu identifying yourself as atheist, it’s your prerogative but you’re not within the fold of Hinduism. If it creates cognitive dissonance, let it be. In the wild goose chase of finding allies, Hindus have compromised to the extent of accommodating reprehensible beef eaters as Hindus but this only harms Hinduism by showing that it’s a system without rules. If you can’t honour your gods and goddesses or can’t defend when they’re being attacked, you’re a mass of tissues whose existence on this earth is of no value whatsoever.
World Through A Kaleidoscope 
great Post !!
LikeLike