Madhu Kishwar wrote an article titled “A Question of Balance” regarding khap panchayat. Blogger Indyeah critiques it here . While this blog is an analysis of Indyeah’s article, it is actually the mindset that produces such articles that is attempted to be criticized here.

Quoting from Madhu Kishwar’s article- “No civilised society can sanction murder simply because some people claim a particular person brought them “dishonour”. Likewise, no civilised society can allow a small minority of self-appointed social reformers to decide arbitrarily which identities have sanctity and which must be banned out of existence through statist coercion“. Indyeah asks-

 “When she(Madhu Kishwar) writes about NOT allowing a small minority of self appointed reformers to decide arbitrarily as to which identities should have sanctity , does she then also extend this reasoning to cover France’s burqa ban that she supports wholeheartedly? Why no emphasis by her on first finding a consensus among the Muslim society there? It was okay to have a small minority of self appointed reformers to decide on the burqa ban in France?”

The burkha is worn publicly in society and not just in muslim areas or just within muslim households, so it is a society matter. Banning it in France is the decision of that society. They have a right to decide how their society should be. Similarly khap also have a right to decide how their society or community should be. Madhu Kishwar is consistent on that point.   

“Pull the Muslim women out of the medieval age she says or else they will be stuck there forever. Okay. One accepts she has a point there. (Though the word BAN is like this bone stuck in my throat). But why an about turn by her on the khap issue in India then? Why no calls for ‘pulling the community out of medieval age?”

A possible reason why the word ‘ban’ sticks in throat may be that in these times of political correctness bold actions and words are intimidatory to a PC, for whom words such as that are to be used only when the ‘minority’ community demands that it be used, to assuage its ‘hurt sentiments’ caused by some book or cartoon, not otherwise.

The blogger seems to have accepted that khaps are ‘medieval’, which means it is to be taken as ‘primitive’, ‘abhorrent’, and with an expiry date well in the past. In ‘modern’ ‘progressive’ society, to which that blogger belongs,  it is the accepted norm that anything pasted with the label ‘medieval’ is to be condemned. She is following the general norm of this society- that of ‘calling a dog mad and killing it’. But in this blind attempt to label apples as oranges she misses the point that khap is a democratic system that works on consensus among its constituents, not something that claims legitimacy on the basis of what is claimed to be the ‘words of a god’ or prophet. It is a democratic system for governance at local level.

Wikipedia says about functioning of khap– “The Khap is a system of social administration and organization in the republics of Northwestern Indian states such as Haryana, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh since ancient times. Khap is a term for a social-political grouping and used in a geographical sense. Other parallel terms are Pal, Ganasangha, Janapada or republic. The concept of Khap is ancient; written references are found as far back as Rig Vedic times. … The Panchayat system is territorial and highly democratic. Every village has its own Panchayat. … All decisions are taken after open-hearing, full and voluntary expression of views and consensus vote. A number of villages grouped themselves into a Gohand, gohand actually means neighboring villages, a number of Gohands form a ‘Khap’“.

Steve Muhlberger, Associate Professor of History, Nipissing University writes about Democracy in Ancient India– “The experience of Ancient India with republicanism, if better known, would by itself make democracy seem less of a freakish development, and help dispel the common idea that the very concept of democracy is specifically “Western”.”

There is a major difference between respecting democratic traditions that foster self-sufficiency, as in the case of khap, and imposing dehumanising edicts claimed to be coming from ‘god’, as in the case of certain islamic injunctions. The blogger fails to discern this.

A ban in France would have been fine HAD the Muslim population, specifically the Muslim WOMEN been asked . Had there been a poll. The democratic consensus that Ms Kishwar writes about here.”

The decision in France is taken by a democratically elected government. The blogger forgets that fact in her eagerness to bestow upon ‘muslim population’ the decisive rights on what society should accept.

This is also a pointer to the the mindset created in india by the ‘intellectuals’ and ‘academicians’. A mindset that wants muslims to have first claim on nation’s resources, unmindful that this was the policy of ‘medieval’ muslim marauders! The mindset that causes a PM to lose his sleep thinking about the plight of the family of one muslim suspected for ties to Glasgow bomber, the same PM apparently does not  lose any sleep over the plight of the families of  thousands of Indian soldiers and paramilitary being mudered in the hands of muslim terrorists in Kashmir.
This mindset is what Babar and Aurangazeb imposed, that muslims are superior, and the rest, inferior ‘dhimmis’, who should  pay jizya. The ‘intellectuals’ of today apparently do not recognize their own such ‘medieval’ mindset!

Seems like the kindergarten example of ‘If you wont agree to the rules, even I won’t’. ‘Other’ religious minorities show no inclination to be part of a consensus on UCC, writes Madhu Kishwar and therefore Ms Kishwar argues even Khaps should be allowed to have their own personal laws.”

While the blogger bestowed upon the ‘minority’ muslim population the right to decide how society should be, she refuses to extend to the majority even the privileges that are given to such ‘minorities’, lest it be ‘kindergartenish’. This is the convoluted conception of ‘equality’ in ‘modern’ times. 

If in future, as Madhu writes, Khap Panchayats will give freedom to any couple that wants to get married under the Special Marriage Act, then where is that freedom now? Why the demand for amendment in the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA) ? An individual would like to use the Special Marriage Act to get married to the person of his/her choice IF there are certain obstacles in the way . But to FIRST CREATE an obstacle(the proposed amendment) and THEN say that oh! you have the Special Marriage Act for your benefit??? Absurd in the extreme!”

The proposed amendment in Hindu Marriage Act is required to legitimize the existing, accepted, norm in Jat society of Haryana. Those who want to opt out of those norms are free to do so using Special Marriage Act. Only, they will then be opting to forgo ties with the community. The proposed amendment is necessary to protect the community from  any future claims made by such people upon inheritance or relationship.

After all, the whole issue is about choice. Two individuals want to get married to each other and the khap panchayats citing age old tradition don’t allow them to do so.”

Choice making is not the sole right of those two individuals. The people who remain in the community also have  the right to choose whether they want people who violate their norms to remain in their midst.

So the couple escapes(or tries to) and is killed before or after getting married. Depends on when the Khap panchayats catch hold of them. And it is named ‘Honour’ killing . Just exactly whose ‘honour’ it is, is yet to be determined.

Khap is not limited to the people who did the murder, or the people who instigated that murder. There are numerous khaps all over Haryana, Rajasthan and UP. To use one off incident to tarnish the entire people is absolutely incorrect and unjustified.

This type of focusing on one incident committed by few individuals and to denounce the entire community for that incident is typical behaviour of ‘intellectuals’.

They deliberately refuse to see that ‘hindus’ are not limited to the people who pushed widows into a funeral pyre. They are not just the people who burned ‘dalits’. Not just the people who brought down a dilapidated structure built over a temple in Ayodhya, not just the people who were convicted for riots in Gujarat. Focusing on only these acts and to label ‘hindus’ accordingly is the proclivity of present day ‘intellectuals’ and ‘media personalities’. Interestingly they reverse the process when ‘minorities’ are involved, while they focus on the few bad apples among what they call ‘majority’ community, they overlook the overwhelmingly numerous bad apples of ‘minority’ community produced by a polluting theology. Then they ascribe terrorist acts by muslims and christians as ‘reaction againt the fascist oppression by hindus’.

This behaviour may be traced partly to the fear instilled in some sections of society by past tyrants like Aurangazeb  and their present day successors who vociferously and sometimes physically assault critics, and partly due to the macaulayite indoctrination imposed by british, euphemistically called ‘education’, that indoctrinates people that they and their culture are worthless. So between the likes of Aurangazeb, Macaulay and their successors, the ‘intelligensia’ finds relief in self-flagellation and attempts to portray themselves as ‘modern’ and to condemn every practice of their ancient culture as ‘medieval’.

So khap panchayats that don’t allow two individuals to get married now will ‘allow’ or ‘give the choice’ to their sons and daughters to do so in the future? After the amendment? Apparently Ms Kishwar thinks so. She seems to think that once the amendment is made, Khap Panchayats will undergo a change of heart and will agree like little kittens to any wish of their children to marry within gotra. And that they will lose their bloodthirsty tendency. If according to Ms Kishwar, Clan or family members of such rebels have the right to disown and disinherit such persons but cannot be given the right to hound them to death, then why are the clan members not already doing so ? They need an amendment to change their heart? But wait! The proposed amendment is EXACTLY what the khap Panchayats want so WHY would they become all docile AFTER their wish has been granted???”

The amendment, as said before, will protect the khap community and its properties from any lawful claims upon it with regard to inheritance or relationship by people who do not conform to its laws. 

The mention of ‘docility’ indirectly points to the crux of the issue. It is the stand taken by khaps claiming the right to decide for themselves, the right to independent thought, the right to continue their traditions, that is troubling the blogger.
Those who have surrendered their rights to independent opinion to ‘intellectuals’ and  media personalities feel agitated to see people they consider as ‘uneducated’ claiming that right. They want to teach their ‘inferiors’ a lesson in ‘modernity’. They feel insecure to find Madhu Kishwar championing such cause.
They want khap to be docile like they themselves are, to the overbearing self appointed ‘reformers’, who are in turn docile followers of their western overlords and paymasters.

Insinuating ‘bloodthirstiness’ on khap is similar to the way native americans were caricatured in that manner before exterminating them and grabbing their lands.

The last question in the quote above expresses their subconscious fear that khap may not become docile even in the future, and therefore need to be stifled, gagged, labelled and exterminated right now, in a pattern similar to how independent aspirations of native people were subjugated or subverted by colonialists in the past to prevent any possibility of rebellion or insubordination.

There are many communities that are still outside that all important sphere called education and are still stuck in a medieval mindset. So are they to be allowed to do what they want?”

The ‘all important sphere of education’! The same that converted these people into coconuts (as defined by Richard Crasta in ‘Impressing the Whites’) and brown sahibas and sepoys, that which makes them members of the club of ‘modern’ and ‘progressives’! How can these people allow those who do not belong to this club to do what they want ? Only club members have decision making powers. Like in the ‘good’ old colonial days- (traditional)indians and dogs not allowed in the club.

 “There are many communities that are holding on to certain questionable practices even now. If one extends Ms Kishwar’s arguments regarding ‘preservation of tradition’ vis a vis the khap panchayats to other ‘traditions’ of other communities as well then where will it lead us?”

Any practice that is not sanctioned by the high divas of modernity is of course ‘questionable’ and condemnable! Everybody should owe allegience to the god of ‘modernity’ that these people are believers of, all non-believers are denied right to existence like in those medieval times that these people ironically claims to condemn. 

India, by reviving its valuable traditions would gain self-respect, be able to function on its own terms, having its own concepts, devolving power to local units, allowing diversity of thought and practices in democratic manner- like how it was before the marauders from west came here with their monotheistic mandrax. But if that happens, these ‘progressives’ and their god of ‘modernity’ would be rendered powerless. That agitates their minds.

Where does one draw the line in giving communities the power to choose which traditions they want to keep and which ones they want to discard? Those youngsters who are dying for simply making a choice are also a part of this very same community right?”

Devolving power, giving independence of thought to others, is anathema to followers of monotheistic religions. It is this fear that motivates the blogger to think of drawing lines to keep others confined within.

Citing one example of ‘dying youngsters’ is a rehash of the tactic used by colonialists and missionaries to caricature natives as imbeciles, unable to think and act for themselves and needing the guidance from their ‘masters’, based on select incidents.

“HOW will these communities EVER come out of the old mindset? When will they advance on the path to progressive thinking? A vicious circle again?

The plaintive cry apparently is- When will these communities join my club, and stop becoming a threat to my religion of ‘modernity’ and ‘progressiveness’ ?

As a commentor writes in response to Ms Kishwar’s column, ‘For, the constitution not only lays down the framework of governance, but also expects the state to perform a pivotal role while facilitating Indian society’s forward movement towards meaningful social change'”

The man made document ‘Constitution’ is now being attempted to be used to justify depriving the rights of individual communities using state power, much in the same manner claims in bible were used to justify colonialism at one time.

‘And sometimes scattered young voices calling out for change and dying for it speak more loudly than that of a collective Khap Panchayat. But only to those who want to hear.’

Drama is a favorite of these ‘modernists’. They instictively slip into that mode. These people straining to hear the scattered voices of ‘dying youths’ are of course STONE DEAF to the cries of the majority. After all, they are indoctrinated to consider that only ‘minorities’ have rights!

Madhu Kishwar’s arguments are shaky at best. If there is a more logical presentation of facts one might feel compelled to listen. Not so the case here.

The arguments put forth by the blogger are shameful at best, being mere copies of western colonial propaganda, duplicitous and  subversive otherwise. 

The blogger’s critique of Madhu Kishwar comes across as more of an instinctive reponse rather than a studied one, for if she had cared to study khaps, she may realize that it is a democratic system, actually much more beneficial than the centralised government that we have now. Instead she seems to have merely followed the line laid out by ‘intelligensia’ and media.

What is instructive is the way this instinctive response of a person whose thinking is obviously moulded by english language newspapers and TV channels reveals uncanny resemblance to colonial ideas.

It reveals the depth to which colonial thought has penetrated ‘english speaking society’ of ‘modern progressives’, a society composed of ‘coconuts’, brown sahibas and other sepoys of western empire.

When will these people gain independence from their colonial mindsets ? Do they even seek it, or are they like the Uncle Toms and house niggers of yore, content in their present state, having internalised the indoctrinations of present day colonialists, blind to the shackles on their mind and intellect, programmed to come out with responses such as these whenever any serious issue comes up.

The ongoing debate on khap is also a part of the debate over centralized, homogenized, globalized society that ‘modern’ people attempts to create on the lines of monotheistic western thought as against the diversity respecting localized society that Indic culture fosters.



Elsewhere, on khap


Gandhi: A True Sepoy

In the book “Gandhi: A True Mahatma ?“, author Agneya unravels the extent to which Gandhi was influenced by british indoctrination and christian propaganda. Gandhi stands revealed as a christian in all but name- christian in the sense of a person who has internalised the propaganda spread by church that ‘suffering’ and subservience to dogmas of New Testament is sole path to god’s blessings. He is also revealed as a person who is convinced about the superiority of the british and, by extension, as their being the rightful administrators over other people including Indians.  Having internalised church propaganda and convinced about superiority of british, he ventured to spread these ideas among indians,  surreptitiously, while taking the name of Sri Rama, Sri Krishna and in the pretext of being inspired by bhagavad gita, all of which are known to have powerful influence over indians. Gandhi is therefore revealed as a sepoy of the Western Empire, engaged in the act of converting his countrymen into subservient sepoys of empire like himself. Western Empire here refers to the aggrandizing empire building behaviour of the Romans that saw them conquering lands and enslaving people, which trait was displayed by the Church engaged in expanding and converting people into sheeps, by Islam plundering and enslaving people for the Caliphate, by various capitalists such as East India Companies and Hudson Bay Company looting other lands, paving way for colonialism, and by communists unleashing class war to usurp dictatorial power. This trait saw these people make use of any opportunity, be it religion, science, anthropology, history or linguistics, as tools for subjugating people, both physically and mentally. Their biggest victory is in converting other people into being their slaves, getting them to become a part of the empire, as a sepoy.

The usefulness of a sepoy is in his not being identified as a slave of the empire. Taking the name of Sri Rama, Sri Krishna and bhagavad gita helped Gandhi in maintaining the illusion of working in the interest of bharatiya samskriti. This then enabled him to play the role of spokesperson for India, thus furthering the interest of the empire.

The role played by Gandhi then provides lessons today regarding how subversion could be achieved intentionally or even subconsciously, how a person convinced that one particular path is the correct one- in Gandhi’s case, the path of suffering, assumedly shown by Jesus -then engages in converting people into becoming a part of the western empire.

How many such people are there nowadays, influenced by the western propaganda, sepoys of the empire themselves,  perhaps unable to recognize themselves as such, yet enjoying the power and pelf provided by the empire, venture to become spokesperson or activist for the ‘native’, but inevitably foster the interest of the empire ?

Tools of the Empire

In the course of history, western empire has used many tools for aggrandizement, viz., Roman imperialism, Catholic Church and its many offshoots, Islam, Capitalism, Colonialism, Communism, Nazism, Fascism, Racism, Nationalism etc. Today the western empire uses ‘capitalism’ as its primary tool. This was the tool that was intrumental in bringing about colonialism through East India Company, Hudson Bay Company etc. It accords paramountcy to materials and provide unbridled avenue for expressing greed. The enormous damage that this tool wrecks on environment is unmatched. It also severely damages the mind of people, converting them into materialistic zombies, white collared and blue collared labourers, automations, who act on cues.

Modern Sepoys

Many of the present day sepoys of the empire view the other tools as detrimental to ‘humanity’ and capitalism as ‘harbringer of development and modernity’. These people are vociferous in their criticism of other tools, but are blind-sided to the enormous damage that capitalism wrecks on ‘humanity’. They are, like all converted people, unable to see alternatives beyond what they are indoctrinated. So they see as possible alternative only the other tools of the empire. When some of them recognize alternative in indigenous traditions, they are eager to make such alternatives part of the empire.

Even when they are seen as arguing against the empire, they are actually only working for the empire, to make space for the ‘others’- the indigenous group they belong to, in the empire, to consolidate the merger with the empire. Though, in their influenced state of mind some of them may not realise it is so, and some others merely try to convince themselves that such is the best course.

Possible examples of such behaviour- An eminent ‘hindu’, in his varied criticism of the west consistently fails to identify or prosecute ‘capitalism’. A ‘nationalist hindu’ feels disturbed upon seeing criticism of capitalistic ideas and ventures to put up straw man arguments. An internet hindu interested in India’s development considers ‘progress of civilization’ on western terms.


Sustainable future lie in not spreading the aggrandizing rapacious empire. It lies in seeing the true nature of this empire, the various tools that it uses to gain its ends, the way in which it develops or appropriates new tools as it comes up against opposition, its insatiable appetite and attachment to material objects. It lies in growing out of the indoctrinations inculturated by the empire, to view it critically and to prosecute it. It is also inevitably linked to realizing the true purpose of life and knowledge of selfthe central objectives of bharatiya samskriti.

Blogger Reality Check is in despair’ as he writes that the current measures by the government towards caste census does not ensure ‘social justice’.

Yet implicit in his stance is the idea that reservations or  ‘positive discrimination’ is justified. He writes- “We instantly see Dalits and some Tribes as rightful targets of positive discrimination and some castes like Kshatriyas, Brahmins as those needing to take a hit.”

What is overlooked here is that parentage or even economic status does not necessarily justify or support ‘positive discrimination’.

Point being, a person like Madhu Koda or ‘justice’ Dinakaran or A Raja though from ‘lower caste’ or ‘dalit’, have displayed inclination to misuse their positions to amass wealth. There are many such persons, regardless of caste or economic status, who display inclinations towards selfish aggrandizement. When such people, even coming from poor families, are placed in positions of power, however small or big, through policies of ‘positive discrimination’, the nation or society is injuring itself.

While some people have inclinations towards selfish aggrandizement and have the tendency to misuse the positions they come to occupy, some others have inclinations to allow such people to have their way, to not acknowledge the crimes being committed. These second type of people, themselves fearful of indulging in rapacious corruption like the former, yet enjoy the spoils and crumbs that their positon throws up surreptitiously. These type of people also can be found in every economic strata and ‘caste’ of society, often functioning as useful tools in the hands of the former type.

The idea of using ‘caste’ or economic status as any criteria to obtain ‘social justice’ or ‘societal equality’ is flawed, chimeric and delusional because it in no way provides for preventing the people such as mentioned above from occupying positions of power. In fact, not having such a criteria of ‘caste’ or ‘economic status’ by itself is also not guaranteer of health of society.

Therefore ‘positive discrimination’ should be there. Only to bring in people with strength of character and moral and ethical values, from all strata of society, into all positions in society, high as well as low.

In the absence of this criteria, it does not matter if all positions of power are given to people of a particular ‘caste’ or ‘religion’ or it is left as a free-for-all, because, there is equal chance of good people coming to occupy positions of power in either case. So without reservation you may have an MMS in chair with an A R who steals in percentage of GDP and a saintess of foreign origin deciding who will become President, CEC and everything of import. With reservation you may have a Maya in chair who may or may not match up to AR’s capacity in loot. Either ways, without the correct criteria for  choosing people to positions of responsibility, there is only a random chance of the correct thing happening, a very random chance. Such tendencies, towards aggrandizement or passivity in the face of aggrandizement, are not genetically transmitted; neither are abilities, talents and inclinations, nor sense of rightness.  These qualities are also not defined by the gender of a person, or by his/her economic condition, people possessing these qualities being found in every economic strata or ‘caste’ of society regardless of gender. Therefore any categorisation based on parentage, ‘caste’, gender, or even economic conditions, is insubstantial and delusionary.

Western influence cause people to forgo considerations of rightness, and instead, to view people in terms of  ‘community’, ‘religion’, ‘caste’, ‘economic strata’, ‘gender’, to consider these fabricated labels as real, defining them and others, and to be deluded by the notion that ‘equalising’ these chimeric labels is necessary or even contributory  for sustenance of society.

Institutions and systems built upon such western thought and ideas naturally fail to produce the right results, yet, the deluded expect such institutions and systems, and the people appointed in such systems, to deliver justice.

It may be necessary to do reality check on the conceptions of the mind influenced by western thought and the system of indoctrination deceptively called ‘education’.



Astounding feat.

Wading into the intolerable drivel called CWMG requires tremendous courage and tenacity. To suffer that bs, yet think logically and clearly, and to bring out a wealth of information that has the potential to de-brainwash and inform millions of people is an astounding feat.

In these times, it is like almost a bhageeratha prayatna.

Agneya does that here – , as he analyses Gandhi, based on CWMG and related materials.

He refers itihasas, puranas and the vedas, as well as Koran, Hadiths and Bible to bring out the roots of the imaginations and the inconsistencies that pervade Gandhi’s work.

He recognizes Gandhi as a tamasic person, completely under the  influence of church propaganda- considering dogmatic piety, self-flagellation and suffering alone as pathways to reaching god. Gandhi is also revealed as submissive towards ‘allah’ and Koran. In fact, considering Gandhi’s efforts to blackmail ‘hindus’ into inaction in the face of muslim aggression during the time of partition, Gandhi could also be considered to have indirectly followed the koranic call of destroying kaffirs. Thus Gandhi’s claim to have been a true muslim may be true in more ways than one.

In this excellent book, to nitpick, there is one small error when the author says at page 151, “The social activism he (Gandhi) practiced in South Africa, with its focus on ahimsa and literary critiques of government policy, in reality contained qualities belonging more to the brahmana than the kshatriya“. Not true. brahmana is inclined towards realisation of brahma. Gandhi was inclined towards obtaining the halo of a suffering-celebrity-martyr, similar to how church portrays Jesus. Such tendency, to be influenced by an image and to desire to shape oneself in such image, is characteristic of sudra. It is born of a tamasic predisposition, which the author correctly discerns in Gandhi. Further, Gandhi’s ahimsa was different from the ahimsa that  bharatiya darshanas advocate, it was actually himsa as the author identifies in page 131.

In this book the author also touches upon the non-literal meaning of the vedas, which most west-educated ‘indologists’ fail to comprehend. In many places the author also discusses concepts of bharatiya samskriti in lucid yet profound manner, benefiting the reader in multiple ways.

Just as the waters of ganga brought by Bhageeratha’s prayatna liberated his anscestors, the wisdom contained in this book through Agneya’s prayatna has the potential to liberate many indians from the tamas of gandhian-western influence.

One of the best books ever.

Rajiv Malhotra’s article “Can Hindus Self-Govern Competitively? Lessons from the Nithyananda Scandal” was criticized in the previous blog  for its adharmikata  and indiscriminate admiration of ‘church’. It was also noted that the object of any study affects the student in subtle ways and that this may explain the considerable influence of ‘church’ in Malhotra’s positions, which, as per his article, has been the object of his study for over a decade.

The subsequent comments received on that blog reveals that intolerance to criticism, a hallmark of ‘church’, has been faithfully imbibed by the student alongwith other tools of subterfuge.

Instead of focusing on the adharmik positions he had taken in his article and introspecting, Malhotra starts off by questioning whether his critic wants to abandon what he ingeniously terms ‘tradition’, referring to purva-paksha.

purva-paksha has been explained in simple terms by a commenter Divya at unrelated discussions elsewhere on the web in the following manner-

“There was also an important concept of purva-paksha or studying your opponents viewpoint thoroughly before engaging in debate and thus the level of debates was very sophisticated.”

“About purva-paksha. This is a tool used within the various indigenous darshanas. While I seriously recommend that all hindus try and understand the nature of xtianity and islam, I also hold that no argument or debate is possible between the indic traditions and the abrahamic traditions since they are faith-based. How can you possibly argue with a claim that God made the world and this is true because the Bible says so and the Bible is the word of God? So I’m delighted that you remembered the point about purva-paksha, but it is applicable only within the indic traditions since a dialog with faith-based traditions is sterile from the indic point of view. The other point about purva-paksha to note is that this tool was employed with the purpose of winning a debate. If you are interested in purva-paksha it will only serve your purpose if you tackle the solid points of the philosophy and not just go looking around for stuff to ridicule.”

In short, purva-paksha is the arguments from the opposing side that a debater puts forth, which he then refutes using reasoning to consolidate his position.

Malhotra attempts some skillful jugglery to suggest that (a) his study of ‘church’ is for purva-paksha, (b) that by disparaging his study his critics may be going against traditions and (c) that his study is the sole means by which a proper response can be made to ‘church’.

Citing some ‘authority’ to justify their mis-deeds is a frequent technique of church people. The student here emulates his teacher, attempting to use ‘tradition’ as the authority, to justify his study of ‘church’.

What he fails to note is that whatever means he uses to justify his pursuit, the fact that he is considerably influenced by the church system, his object of study, evident in his article, cannot be wished away. That is the reality he has to face and remedy, which he fails to do when he instead chooses to launch attack on critics.

The study of the ‘other’ may be useful. What needs to be kept in mind is that at the end of it the student should not be so influenced that he loses his sense of dharma.
Guidance or monitoring by somebody who is not directly involved in the study may be necessary whenever such endeavours are undertaken, in order to forestall adverse results.

Further, at the end of it the student must let go of the others’ tools, methods and perspectives that he may have adopted during his study, in order to gain back dharmic perspective.

While the study of church system may increase knowledge of the student, the contention that it would help in doing purva-paksha of church position is contestable, because the church is built upon false claims to being the sole representative of one ‘almighty’ ‘god’. All their positions, floating on this lie, are chimeric and meant to mislead. Effective purva-paksha is not possible with such illusory positions.

Putting up straw man arguments and countering them is a deplorable tactic that the ‘learned student’ indulges in as he condemn what he calls ‘closed minded Indians, who have very little understanding of the external world discourse other than pop culture and superficial ideas heard through casual contact – from barber shops to TV news to desi parties’. He mentions what some such ‘supposed intellectuals’ had ‘felt’ regarding the study of others when he raised the matter at an event in Delhi. The learned student’s depreciatory efforts in that direction turns out to be a poor parody of purva-paksha.

Specific lines from Shri Malhotra’s article were cited in the previous blog to substantiate the conclusions there. Yet he refused to consider them and repeatedly asked for further ‘proof’ for the conclusions. Pakistan too asks for ‘proof’ perennially from India for their complicity in terrorist acts.

He also displayed deficiency in discernment by equating purva-paksha with competitor analysis that US and Al Qaeda does on each other and that companies do in the market. This tendency to relate totally different concepts to make fanciful connnections is peculiar to west-inspired ‘intellectuals’, who have been known to equate brahma and ishwara to the christian concept of ‘god’. This is similar to the mistake made by the blind men who concluded variously that elephant is like a rope, wall, tree, snake, fan and so on, depending on which body part of the elephant they put their hands on. This tendency also motivates some people to seek a counterpart for western concept ‘religion’, such as christianity, in bharatiya samskriti; and failing to find any, they create something called ‘hinduism’ which they then go on to consider as substantial, indigenous, authentic and representing bharatiya samskriti. Some of these people then go on to organize a stucture ‘Hindu Acharya Sabha’ which is then expected to pontificate and herd its hindu sheep like its source of inspiration-the popes of church. Deracination and western influence seems directly proportional.

Yet another western influence that Malhotra displayed in his comments is an apparent obsession with physical identity and unduly high opinion of himself. He feels that his critics may have complexes that manifest in jealousy towards him because he is doing things they aren’t. He also thinks that they may be disgruntled because he does not give them importance and that is why they criticise him- to gain a sense of self importance. This assumption leads him to overlook the merit of the criticism and to seek the identity of the critic in order to justify his imaginative reasonings. It also prevents him from understanding that the criticism is of his position more than of his person.

He also displays, by repeating the same questions/aspersions in different comments, the western approach of demanding answers in the format they are comfortable with or reducing the answers to force fit their limited perspective. Similar to the kupa manduka who demanded that the vastness of ocean be demonstrated within the limited space of his well.

Launching proxies and introducing false fronts to harass and gain more knowledge of opponents and to wear them down through attrition are well known techniques of war that church people have mastered and employed through the centuries. Malhotra also shows that he has learnt those lessons well by making use of apparent acolytes who come in the guise of a ‘desi’ who seems to be more videsh-influenced and a ‘Ms Jain’ who is obviously a dig at Sandhya Jain, editor of
Since ‘Ms Jain’ has made the appearance, it is assumed that ‘Ms Rajan’ is not far behind!

The commenter Karigar then attempted to box in and label everybody for easy reference. So Malhotra got ‘pragmatic realism’ and other ‘claimants of Hindu intellectual leadership today’ got ‘idealism’. In the process he forgot that bharatiya samskriti has always chosen dharma over ‘pragmatism’/ ‘realism’/ ‘idealism’ or any other boxed in ‘-ism’.

Thereafter he ‘identified’ the ‘flaw’ that caused ‘foreign domination’ over India ‘twice’, which, as per the unanimous view of all ‘historians’ is due to “ignoring the developments in the rest of the world, being so wrapped up in their own sense of inviolable superiority”!
Having thus identified the ‘flaw’ he also appropriated the authority to preach to the ‘flawed’ people. He solemnly advises- “Ideals are one thing, and reality is another”.
This videsh residing desi thus took up the ‘white man’s burden’ of educating his country cousins. ‘anpad gawar desis’ who may consider brahma as reality and everything else as another thing has a lot to learn from this ‘learned person’.

Karigar’s complete faith in intellectual honesty of ‘his-storyians’ is commendable. Curiously though, he does not entertain similar notions about the intellectual ability of his desi country men.
He may like to console the everyday victims of terrorist brutality in India by explaining to the victims that they were victimised because they ‘ignored the developments in the rest of the world, being so wrapped up in their own sense of inviolable superiority’, not because the terrorist happened to be a ruthless, inhuman, barbarian with an AK-47 influenced by a west created system of insatiable self-aggrandizement. Here Karigar plumbs the depths that marxist apologists go to come up with excuse for inhuman acts of barbaric brutes.

He then observes that the ‘whole social / legal / political system in India today is based on western systems’, tilted in church’s favour, and that the way forward is to adopt church’s way of functioning. Now, that is telling the patient- “your disease is incurable, give up all hope of getting well and learn to live with your disease, come back for check up next week and pay the bill”.
Karigar fails to note that Indians have been following this exact ‘prescription’ for centuries now, adapting to ‘changing realities’ and ‘power structures’ created by adharmik people. It is precisely these ‘adaptions’, discarding dharmik considerations that have brought them to the depths of deracination seen today. Any further regress in the same direction will only make them lose whatever little sense of dharma they hold now. Inability to distinguish between right and wrong means only that their power of discrimination is hampered- unrighteousness will still remain unrighteousness, it will never form sufficient excuse for swapping right and wrong.

Before concluding Karigar makes yet another preposterous statement that to criticize Malhotra is to betray (a) lack of confidence in the strength of hindu thought itself, and (b) shows a certain preconceived ‘guilty as charged’ mindset before assembling theories to prove the charge”.

Summing Up

Freedom to criticise should not be stifled.
Shri Malhotra, who has in the past extensively, and correctly too, questioned the western hegemony in academic discourse, their cartelization tendencies and penchant to use power to impose their view on others, would be doing the correct thing if he takes criticism against his own positions wholeheartedly.
It is not the identity of the critic that should qualify the criticism, it should be its merit alone.

During the encounter with chandala, Adi Shankaracharya recognised the import of chandala’s words and accorded deserving respect regardless of physical identity.

There is the well known episode of Sri Ganesha winning a contest with his brother Sri Karthikeya by circumambulating their parents which is considered equivalent to going around the world. The point is that, study of your own culture and traditions, represented as parents in that narrative, is superior to study of the world.

Further, in chandokya upanishad, there is the story of Uddalaka who asks his son Swetaketu, who has just returned from a long period of study, whether he knows That by knowing which everything is known. Swetaketu answers in the negative and later goes on to learn about That from his parent.

To answer Malhotra’s question in the title of his article, self-governance is possible only by discerning dharma and upholding it, never by emulating adharmis. Discovering ourselves, taking guidance from our samskriti, is the way forward.



 namaste and dhanyavaad