1. Jealousy – Virtue of Academicians
If you ever aspire to find the most jealous people of the world, the only place where you need to look is the humanities department of different universities. Find the professors there and you can gather plenty of individuals who have made career out of this business of jealousy. Their jealousy towards rich, successful, strong and charming people can easily be seen in their writings. For example, their obsession with the idea of economic inequality despite the fact that people are concerned about their own wellbeing rather than worrying over how much a businessman makes in a free market society, consistent rhetoric of lumping other people with them as helpless fellows being exploited by others perpetually and so on. In reality, people are jealous about their neighbors and relatives, not jealous about the wealth of Bill Gates.
The economic prosperity of businessmen eludes the sense of reasoning of these professors that how could someone make so big who is nowhere ‘knowledgeable’ than them nor they’ve such refined vocabulary. Little do they realise that world also rewards people who don’t read books and write columns in newspapers which are of no worth. If you look at all the communist movements around the world, you’ll find a disproportionate representation of this bourgeois class instead of workers rising out of deep state of slumber to smash capitalism.
Their hatred is not directed towards businessmen only but anyone who doesn’t speak and read like them is also a target. As Trump’s vocabulary is worse than a sixth grade kid, he will naturally receive that jealousy and hatred packaged as some sort of resistance while Obama will be hailed as a hero because he is exactly like them. Modi is not different either he isn’t that sophisticated as per their taste. The world would have been a better place without these individuals who do nothing other than engineering revolution and fooling masses to commit something extremely detrimental.
2. Conundrum of Historicity of Sacred Texts of Dharma
Recently, a documentry about the dating of Rama Setu was aired on Discovery Science channel which generated significant interest among Hindus and many people saw it as an evidence of existence of historical Rama. However, I was the one who could care less about it. Not only that, I see such efforts problematic in the long run. First, Sanatan Dharma doesn’t rest on the historicity of Rama. Whether there has been a historical Rama or not is something which doesn’t decide the validity of Sanatan Dharma. Unlike Judaism, Christianity or Islam, which are based on particular historical claims such as Moses saving Jews, Jesus getting crucified and so on, Sanatan Dharma doesn’t get into the problem of deriving its authority from the existence of either historical Rama or Krishna.
The eagerness of Hindus to prove the historical existence of figures mentioned in Itihasas stems from the inferiority complex has been pushed down on their throat by mainstream discourse which labels all of them as mythology. So, there is a conscious and deeper desire to try something which has never been tried by our ancestors due to its immaterial value. And once we start the leftist narrative of proving the historical evidence of Rama, Krishna or other Puranic figures, we are voluntarily walking in the trap laid out by our adversaries. We can’t give the historical evidence of existence of Jatayu or many other such figures irrespective of how hard we try. Then they will come back to either label us pseudoscientific or turn the problem upside down by neglecting the evidence of few and focussing on the nonexistence of the most.We must not accept the paradigm of proving the historicity of either Rama or Krishna but continue with the traditional paradigm of seeing them as avatars of Vishnu who reside in the heart of every Hindu. They are the ones who constitute the foundation of our cultural consciousness who are immortal through the passage of history to get confined to a particular period.
The linear idea of time and Historicism are the concept of Abrahamic religions which must not be applied to the facets of Sanatan Dharma. Due to the concept of cyclical nature of time, we see the role of Parshuram in Ramayana and Mahabharata too which happened in different yugas. You can’t explain that scientifically but only harm yourself in this pursuit by destroying the essence of eternity beyond the temporal limitation of the traditions.
3. Ideological Underpinning of University Education
Indian media has now started the precedent of making people aware about the content of question papers of University exams but they didn’t start it with either JNU or DU but chose BHU. Couple of days ago, they created outrage over a question connecting Chanakya and GST while remaining oblivious of contents of Arthashastra. Maybe, they were expecting Marx and Lenin in a subject which dealt with political and social system of ancient and medieval India.
Now, there is a fresh news about another paper in which questions have been asked about triple talaq and Halaala. Indian elites and secularists who have become accustomed of criticising Sanatan Dharma in the harshest possible manner, couldn’t envision that there can be criticism of Islam and its practices too. In their world, criticism of Islam means dividing society along the religious lines even when it’s within the classrooms of a University but criticism of Sanatan Dharma strengthens the secular fabric of India. I hope that the professors of BHU won’t buckle under the furore which communists and liberals will be creating thereafter.
The first introduction which any student reads in class sixth NCERT history book about different religions begins with how Hinduism is only about caste system by the virtue of Vedas and perpetuates discrimination among its adherents while Islam is called an egalitarian religion. We have grown up with writing answers of questions which explicitly asked about the evil facets of Sanatan Dharma and how it promotes social, gender and economic inequality. I hope that atleast certain section of media will be extremely vigilant about the questions which are asked in exams of JNU so that people come to know what’s actually going on.
4. The Minority Rule – Intransigent Minority
If there is one rule whose importance and relevance can’t be overstated, it will be the minority rule formulated by Nassim Nicholas Taleb. Minority rule asserts that in a complex system, a tiny intolerant minority will dictate the choice of the whole group. This law is most visible in the domain of religions with Islam being the most intolerant one and dominating the world. In the domain of food with America eating Kosher food despite having tiny Jewish population and India progressively moving towards eating Halaal meat in restaurants atleast, and Indians studying in English medium schools despite having zero native English speakers due to the intolerant British who ruled over us.
I’m extending this rule in the domain of law today. Australian parliament passed the law approving of same sex marriage yesterday. Now, what’s the percentage of homosexuals in any country? I don’t think there is any country having more than 10% homosexuals. If that’s the case then why we are destroying the institution of marriage for these people? As homosexuals have become relentless in their pursuits recently with cultural Marxism aiding them in the endeavour, they’ve managed to get the law changed as per their preference in multiple countries. Majority of the population having contrary opinion couldn’t force the legislators to amend the law in opposite direction.
Earlier, we didn’t let the polygamous people destroy the institution of marriage. I’m very sure that percentage of polygamous people in any society will be far greater than homosexuals but we went for strict monogamous marriage. Similarly, why are we letting homosexuals destroy the institution of marriage? On another note, most of the LGBTQSPA+ people are committed feminists who denounce the institution of marriage as it’s patriarchal creation aimed to enslave the women. Yet, they have campaigned ardently for recognition of same sex marriage which ultimately affirms my assertion that it’s nothing more than an attempt to undermine the institution of marriage. Whatever may be the modern view about homosexual marriage but Sanatan Dharma clearly states that marriage is a union between a man and woman to attain Dharma, Artha, Kaama and Moksha. From Dharmic perspective, the idea of LGBT marriage is incompatible with the tenets of Dharma.
5. Paradox of Tolerance
“Never tolerate the intolerance”. This statement is the essence of Popper’s Paradox of Tolerance defined by Popper in his magnum opus “The Enemies of Open Society.” Whenever Hindus start talking about the virtues of tolerance and try to demonstrate the Hinduism is inherently tolerant towards other system or ideology, there comes a liberal to reprimand the Hindus that if you are tolerant then why can’t you tolerate Islam or Christianity? And if you can’t tolerate these monotheistic cults then you’re intolerant.Popper’s Paradox deals with exactly such kind of tolerance. If a philosophical system or society is tolerant towards every other system then there will be advent of an intolerant system which will establish its roots by invoking tolerance and ultimately decimating the original system as it’s intolerant of any other system. So, for a society to remain tolerant, it must be intolerant of totalitarian ideology to preserve its current form.
In another domain, the champions of freedom of expression say that if they’ve freedom of expression then why can’t they call for destruction of Indian Union. Again, it’s the same argument formulated in different words. Freedom of speech only exists due to the existence of state and it’s the Indian union which gives you the freedom of speech. So, you can’t use the freedom bestowed by Union to argue against the very existence of union. You can’t use democracy to thwart democracy by conducting a plebiscite for removal of democracy.
Communists often assert that if you can’t tolerate communism then you’re inherently intolerant. I’ll invoke the same argument again. As communism is a totalitarian ideology, I must not tolerate communism to ensure that the totalitarian ideology doesn’t demolish every other ideology. When we have the empirical evidence of totalitarian nature of communism, tolerating it will be utter foolishness. In a nutshell, I’m extremely intolerant of intolerance.
6. Denouncing the Enemey – Left’s Weapon
The standard leftist technique in every situation is to defame, discredit and portray you in such a manner that you’ll look like an insensitive and cruel guy who supports sinister things. Some very common examoles are as follows:
1. When you oppose communism they’ll tell you that you’re against proletariat.
2. When you oppose leftist policies in economics, they’ll tell you that you’re against poor people.
3. When you oppose a scheme which typically aims to help farmers but actually harms them, you’ll be called a person who hates farmers.
4. If you oppose feminism, they’ll call you a misogynist.
5. If you don’t support their methods of dealing with issues of rape, they’ll call you a person who supports rape.
In all the above mentioned cases, you’re against leftists’ diagnosis and treatment but they portray you as if you’re against the patients.