Introspection and Course Correction Time for Intellectuals

For Indian intellectuals and their fraternity in civil society, it is time for in-depth self-introspection of their past and ongoing omissions and commissions, and to go for the long-due course correction. We, ordinary Indians, humbly and sincerely hope that you, major stakeholders in the country’s all-round development story, won’t fail to recognize your shortcomings any longer. India, in the last quarter of her first century of freedom from about ten centuries of Abrahamic subjugation, is poised for a remarkable transformation. During this period of self-rule, you have a significant role and responsibility to help restore India’s lost glory.

Since independence, Indian intellectuals have largely embraced the Western so-called value system, which preaches tolerance, but in practice have facilitated the destruction and demonization of Indian history, culture, and civilizational values that have existed since ancient times—before Christ (BC). This has often been achieved through their strong financial influence and, at times, even by appropriating victim’s early scientific inventions.

Also Read: The Hypocrisy and Absurdity of Nobel Laureate Economist of Indian Origin

Note: The new generation of tech-savvy Indians, on the whole, are no longer enthusiastic about listening, let alone accepting, your hypocritically adorned intellectual greatness being narrated frequently in ornamental verbiage in the Queen’s language. Similarly, the Western political leadership, spanning from MENA to The White House via EU, and from Tokyo to Canberra, no longer blindly follows your narratives. While the new generation is ready to embrace the Queen’s language, they refuse to do so when it comes to the narratives it delivers. The new generation is now discerning and selective, unlike their predecessors.

Here, I would like to remind everyone of the work of a young technocrat turned banker turned historian, Dr. Vikram Sampath, who ventured to write a biography of the freedom fighter Veer Savarkar. Veer Savarkar was maligned and his works were ignored by establishing historians, primarily due to his ardent support and propagation of Hindutva philosophy, which the Supreme Court of India has accepted as all-inclusive while fighting for the country’s freedom.

Savarkar’s contributions to the freedom movement and social reforms have been unjustly disregarded, often with the excuse that he appealed to the then British Indian government to release him from a decade-long rare solitary confinement in the Cellular Jail—also known as the infamous Kala Pani—for his “crime” of waging war against India’s subjugator, the King of England.

Dr. Sampath has successfully brought to light the truth about Veer Savarkar’s patriotism through the presentation of undeniable documents blacklisted by mainstream historians, many of whom had a Left and Nehruvian allegiance. What does Dr. Sampath’s venture signify? Is the denial of historical justice to figures like Veer Savarkar not a display of intellectual hypocrisy?

Many like Savarkar have faced similar fates. It’s important to note that the new generation is more concerned with the truth than anything else. Dr. Sampath’s argument that history as a subject is ‘evolving’ with the discovery of new evidence has been widely accepted. In the future, more researchers may venture into once-forbidden territories to unearth historical truths, challenging traditional lines of thinking that have often denied India her rightful place in the world of rich civilizations.

In a recent ideological encounter, Indian IRTS officer and Commonwealth Scholar, 31-year-old Siddhartha Verma, engaged in a discussion with Grand Old Party’s former President and de facto owner, Rahul Gandhi, at the UK’s Cambridge University. In the presence of CPIM General Secretary Sitaram Yechury and regional party RJD’s tallest leader Tejaswi Yadav, the young bureaucrat challenged Rahul Gandhi’s propaganda that India, a ‘union of states’, was ‘destructive’. This expression of disapproval is an eye-opener. Has anyone ever heard a budding bureaucrat challenging a politician over an ideological issue?

Contrary to Rahul’s view, Verma stated that, as a political leader, Rahul’s idea of India was “flawed”, “incorrect”, and “destructive” because it tried to “whitewash the history of thousands of years”. Academic and The Print columnist Shruti Kapila, anchoring the Cambridge program, pointed out that the term “rashtra” means kingdom, to which Verma replied that it is the “Sanskrit word for nation”. Gandhi then added that “nation is a Western concept”. A buzz rippled through the crowd when Verma said, “A Constitution cannot make a nation, and a nation makes the constitution”.

Discussing Gandhi’s statement, Verma later remarked, “I do not understand the motive, but I assume that there had been an attempt to whitewash India’s ancient history. There is also an attempt to negate pre-Independence India… they only talk about the post-Independence formation. If one reads the Constitution properly, it is there, right in the preamble that India [is] a nation.”

Verma further added, “I think there is a lack of awareness about ancient history. I think Indian history should focus on ancient India a little more”. Hailing from Lucknow, Verma describes himself as a “Commonwealth scholar,” “civil servant,” and “patriot” in his Twitter bio. What does this hitherto rare incident indicate? Certainly, there is a lesson here for Indian intellectuals who have blindly followed Western intellectualism, which has discredited Indian indigenous intellectualism and value systems.

Even Indian intellectuals are not entirely honest in their endorsement of the so-called Western value system, which they often refer to while commenting on the present system of governance in India. Responding to a question from a newspaper about the upcoming election for Congress President, the eminent scholar, former UN diplomat, and now Congress MP Shashi Tharoor replied, “Just wait for the election to be announced and see what the options are. I am not saying I would necessarily be a candidate. If the ‘heir apparent’ chooses not to be a candidate, then others will come forward and we will have a good set of choices.”

Note the use of “heir apparent”! What does he mean by justifying such a phrase? Is the position of party president in a democracy hereditary? If the party president’s post is accepted as hereditary today, the return of the 1975 slogan “India is Indira and Indira is India” could occur, with names like Rahul, Tejaswi, Mamata, etc., replacing Indira to signify the intellectually endorsed hereditary governance of the nation. Decades ago, we heard, “Jab tak hai samosa mein aloo, tab tak hai Bihar mein Lalu”. What kind of democracy promotes such sloganeering? It’s a different matter that since then, Lalu’s reign has seen many ups and downs.

Would the concept of the right of the “heir apparent” not destroy the beauty and essence of India’s democracy? Is this practice prevalent in Western democracies, which have been the inspiration of Indian intellectuals? This exposes Indian intellectualism as nothing less than opportunism, which the new generation of Indians is no longer willing to tolerate.

Now, despite massive anti-India campaigns in the West and the Middle East, largely promoted and funded by White Supremacists, Evangelists, and Islamists, the democratically elected or otherwise established political leadership of these regions refuses to succumb to this propaganda. They have started realizing that their past actions have weakened culturally rich Hindutva and democratic India, which they now need to counterbalance in order to face challenges from totalitarian China in the Far East and Islamic terror in the Middle East and South Asia.

The US allowing India’s Embassy military attaché for unescorted entry, despite the latter’s military alliance with Russia, and the long queue of Nordic countries’ heads of governments eager to meet Hindutva icon PM Modi during his recent tour of the region, hold significant meaning. Additionally, many countries in the MENA region are keen on building cordial political, commercial, and cultural relations with India, prompting them to sign FTAs.

In light of the above, any delay in understanding the writing on the walls by Indian intellectuals may be detrimental, as their present attitude is leading them towards national irrelevance. This is not conducive to the prosperity of any thriving nation. Let us take the necessary steps to course-correct, remain on the safe side, and make a positive contribution to the nation’s growth story during Amrit Kaal.

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are personal.