You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘rajiv malhotra’ tag.

Rajiv Malhotra starts off his latest article admiring Christian Church, its longest history of continuous governance, tremendous track record of protecting its interests under all circumstances, its invention of corporate management procedures and floating of the first commercial multinationals, such as the Knights Templar.

It is said that whatever we give attention to, is reinforced in our minds. There is the sory of Maricha who wanted to stop thinking about Sri Rama and in the process tried to avoid using even the words having ‘ra’ alphabet. He only ended up reinforcing Sri Rama’s memory in his mind, went on to get killed by Sri Rama and achieved moksha.

Malhotra says he studied with interest the governance systems of various Christian denominations, both formally in seminary courses and through attendance of various Church conferences. It is possible that the long hours spent in such study will influence the mind of a person on those lines. Malhotra’s earlier articles available at show significant influence of dharmik thoughts even though mixed with a tendency to enter into dialogues with the adharmik people. His latest article shows enamoured admiration of christian church and compulsion to adopt their practices. This seems to be the story of a person who went to study the tactics of the enemy in order to fight them effectively, but ended up becoming like them. 

A sample of the influence of adharmik is seen in the way the enemies’ way of viewing things have been adopted by the student. He says ‘The Church has learned a great deal through trial and error and has thus become robust’. Here he personalises the Church, as a being with cognitive abilities that learns lessons and takes corrective measures and becomes robust in the process.

What is Church actually ?

A front for self-aggrandizing individuals to indulge themselves, protected from scrutiny of inquiring minds using the deceptive cover of godly sanction.

By seeing the ‘Church’ as an individual, who acquired the ability to survive many scandals through learning from trial and errors and developing robustness and resilience, the student loses sight of the bunch of selfish, self-aggrandizing individuals who constitute this organisation, who often work at cross purposes, who are themselves indoctrinated and brainwashed into losing all sense of righteousness and who perpetuate a continuous line of similar rapacious zombies. This delusion of the student in not noticing the true constituent of Church leads him to admire that mirage.

Under this delusion, losing sight of dharma, the student sees admirable qualities in the chimera, which he feels compelled to adopt. So he wants to ‘professionalize the governance of Hindu institutions’, which in effect means ‘ape the working of the Church’ in order to be as ‘robust and resilient’.

This leads the student to observe that ‘Indian laws require compliance with regulations pertaining to trusts, societies and associations that are based almost entirely on Western corporate rules of governance which originated in the Church’. In other words, he says, it is not Dharmashastras or Arthashastras that provide the legal methods for governance in India.
Obviously he fails to note that perhaps this is precisely the reason why the Indian legal system and administration is so pathetic, why corruption is so rampant.
When the system is shaped on the lines of example set by self-aggrandizing, selfish minds, what else can be expected ?
What else can result, but rampant corruption that is seen.

The student plumbs new depths with this statement – ‘there is much our gurus can learn from modern corporate governance’.
Sure, it will help them peddle their wares profitably.

He says – ‘our tradition has a long history of assimilating new ideas from everywhere and adapting itself’.
Last known, the fundamental text, the srutis, are the same as they were millenniums ago. Apart from parashara smriti no other smriti has been formulated for this yuga. Puranas, itihasas that provide guidance remain unadulterated, so far.
The deluded student has bitten the fancy line propagated by the british and later continued with by the marxists, that Indian culture is a thorough mixture of ideas ‘contributed’ by different invaders to this land and that it is these ‘contributions’ that makes it rich. That it has always been willing to accept ‘ideas from everywhere’ and to ‘adapt itself’!
By parrotting these lines of the invaders, the students shows the extend to which he has been indoctrinated.

He then claims- ‘There is a clear history of dharma that shows change and evolution’.
It is not dharma that changes. It is the perception and cognition of dharma that does. And the results are obvious in the state of affairs today.

He further claims- “The scandal of SN provided an opportunity to test how Hindus might collectively respond in crisis management”
Really ?
One crook caught with his pants down(figuratively) is a crisis for ‘Hindus’ ?

The delusion of seeing organizational entity in the place of bunch of crooked individuals carrying out their own nefarious designs was displayed by the student earlier in the case of Church. Here he does it again, seeing in the discomfiture of one crooked individual, a crisis for the majority of this one billion plus country and its diaspora.
The cause for this delusion is easy to find- his admiration for World Council of Churches and the Catholic Church whom he had credited with resilience and robustness earlier, for thriving despite scandals involving sexual abuse of even children. He would like to see played out, a similar performance by his chosen collective of ‘hindus’ in this hour of ‘crisis’.

A tendency displayed by those bitten by the bug of such delusion is to try and appropriate organisations for personal aggrandizement. The Gramscian ideas of influencing academic institutions and media as means to gain societal control stems from that. So he calls for a Hindu body to be brought in to play a responsible role, either an institution or a panel of elders, such that there would be fair play by the system and not prosecution by an utterly biased and corrupt media.
Effective skill in wordplay to obfuscate issues is frequently practiced by crooks. Those who draw inspiration from such crooks inevitably acquire similar characteristics. In effect what is being proposed is an organisation that will provide unscrupulous crooks such as Rajasekara a.k.a SN, support and legitimacy. Later such organisations will conveniently form platforms for further deplorable deeds on the pretext of lofty and altruistic reasons, like its source of inspiration- Church. 

The student then introduces a favored tool of his teacher into the article- the element of fear. His worst fears came true when he discovered the absence of any such mechanism like World Council of Churches with hindus!

He appreciates the several individuals who, like him, ‘performed commendably’ in their personal capacities trying to help bring ‘dharmic justice.’ by coming out in support of a crook! Fortunately,  such ‘noble attempts’ failed.

He admires the Church for developing its robustness, even though it took centuries to do so, ‘with considerable enterprise by numerous risk takers’. All that the enterprising people of church probably risked and lost were their sense of righteousness and morality, which fact the devout student overlooks in his eagerness to mold HDAS in Father Church’s image.
So he asks rhetorically, ‘are Hindus willing to go through such processes that are not instant successes and bring no personal benefit ?’,  it may be added, forgoing considerations of dharma, morality and letting HDAS and its Popes set corporate agendas.

Even though Malhotra admits that ‘SN did not make his position clear enough, and nor was he consistent in what he said to various persons from one day to the next’, he does not recognise precisely this moral vacilitation on part of SN as the primary cause of the crisis. This inability to distinguish adharma led him to come out in support of that charlatan when the scandal broke.
But the trained businessperson that he is, appreciates the ‘corporate’ style Non-Disclosure Agreement(NDA) drafted by an American corporate lawyer and signed by lots of persons as a standard corporate NDA. This evident weakness for ‘corporates’ leads him to champion the idea of ‘Hindus Inc.’ in the guise of being concerned about self-governing competence of ‘hindus’.

The deterioration in this student’s ability to discriminate the right from the wrong  is starkly evident when even after  some parents told him of their daughters being compromised by SN, he only wonders whether the NDA will provide legal protection as proof that any alleged sex was between consenting adults.

This self-appointed spokesman for ‘Manu and other past leaders’  says the goal to unify Hindu groups in social-political matters is necessary if Hinduism is to survive. The student has learnt well from his padre teachers whose refrain for each of their selfish acts are- ‘This is what God wants done’.

Revival of hinduism entails inculcating kshatriya competence among a large number of individuals, he notes, but conveniently forgoes the fact that kshatriya is also about upholding dharma. Morality is integral part of dharma. Also, kshatriyas, vyshyas and sudras are to be guided by brahmanas for proper running of society, person’s varna being based on behaviour, independent of parentage.

Then rhetoric – ‘Such a revival entails courageous experimentation, risk taking, enterprising attempts to engage the real issues as and when they happen’ – to justify his recent ‘education’ in the hands of church,  ‘It also involves getting inside the large scale institutional management of other religions in order to learn their strengths and weaknesses as well what we could borrow from them.’

Before concluding he introduces the insinuation that his critics may well be double agents engaged in feeding material to opponents of ‘hinduism’, which is a rehash of George Bush’s memorable- ‘If you are not with us, then you are with them’ line, one step away from ‘If you are not a believer like us, then you are a kaffir, heathen, fit to be killed off in the name of my one and only true God/Allah’.

What stands out in Malhotra’s article is the influence of church, which he seems unaware of.
Indians in the past have been known to shun the company of the unrighteous- mlecchas, and to engage in purifying acts if interacting with them became inevitable. The adharmic influence from mlecchas affects those who interact with them. Rajiv Malhotra’s article shows the effects of this.

Untouchables are the unrighteous, adharmis– those who have suppresed their moral compass or have abandoned it altogether. It is not a genetic trait. Environment and upbringing does influence it. But it is possible for a person born to an unrighteous person to become a brahmana, similarly, the progeny of a brahmana may also grow up to be unrighteous. Besides, an unrighteous person himself could later become righteous and vice versa. Ratnakara who became Maharshi Valmiki, Prahlada, son of Hiranyakashipu, Ravana, son of Vishravas, are examples.

It is consciousness of dharma and the willingness to adhere to dharma at all cost that differentiates the righteous from the unrighteous. Just as a body without atman is a dead body, material success without dharma putrifies. While kama and artha are essential for dharma to manifest, pursuing either at the cost of dharma is counterproductive.

Those who seek to learn from the unrighteous may realise late that the lessons are unrighteous, developed and perfected for unrighteous purposes, and that, by imbibing the unrighteous lessons they themselves become unrighteous.

When the sex scandal of Rajasekaran a.k.a. Swami Nithyananda erupted, Shri Rajiv Malhotra was in Delhi as part of a group to go to Kumbh Mela. He was also “finalizing a new book which deals specifically with Tamil Nadu religious politics, and in particular with the role of various nexuses based overseas“. So he decided to “jump into the eye of the storm of this scandal in order to investigate whether similar nexuses were at work in this case“. With that he reveals the tint of his investigating lens that perhaps colours his report.

He found that “the sensationalized media reports were too one-sided, and none of them had a single statement to report from the swami himself“. How could they report anything from the so-called ‘swami’ when he had gone into hiding ?

Also, “another interest of mine has been to extrapolate important lessons from this episode for other Hindu organizations, which I predict will face similar scandals as and when their weaknesses become understood by those opposed to them.” By ‘weakness’ does he mean the urge to teach ‘tantra’ to actress disciples ?

After a two week long investigation during which he has been, in his own words, “loyal to my pledge to give Swami Nithyananda’s organization the benefit of doubt and to report their side of the story“, he “personally recommended to Swami Nithyananda that the best course at this stage would be for him to resign completely from his organization“. Because- “the head of any organization must accept responsibility that “the buck stops here,” only such a move can salvage the organization and the reputation of dharma at large“. So far so good. The only question that remains is whether Rajasekaran’s ‘resignation’ (if it happens), will be similar to Shri Advani’s ‘resignation’ , wherein he ‘resigned’ the opposition leader position and went on to become the chief patron of sorts of BJP.

Shri Rajiv Malhotra then goes on to ask Sri Sri Ravi Shankar ‘provocative’ questions- “The first provocative question I asked Sri Sri concerned the nature of yogic powers: What is the relationship between siddhis and morality?”. BTW what is ‘provocative’ about that common sensical question, unless Malhotraji’s intention is to shore up his credentials as ‘investigative researcher’ ?

Sri Sri seemed impressed by this question, and agreed with my overall position..“. !!!

Then Malhotra sets a pre-condition for his investigation- “the issue of his (Rajasekaran’s) morality must be pursued separately and independently from whether his siddhis are genuine“. As far as the scandal is concerned, it was about morality, not siddhis. Then what is the need to bring in this talk of siddhis unless it is a red-herring to divert attention from the uncomfortable but inescapable issue of morality ?

After going to Kumbh mela, naga sadhus and Tantra, he claims to “address the issue of Swami Nithyananda’s morality” with this ‘recap’-“My first point… has been that the morality issue about Swami Nithyananda does not impact the effectiveness of the meditation techniques he has taught very successfully.” That is like saying the issue of ethical sensitivity and morality, or lack of it, of ‘mf’ hussain does not impact the effectiveness of his painting strokes which he has peddled very successfully.

My second point was that there is nothing inherent about sex that is rejected by Hinduism across the board..” Another red-herring to divert attention from morality ?

Next, about Rajasekaran, “for a small number of persons, he feels that the 6 sutras involving sexual Tantra need to be tested and perfected for modern times, before they can be safely taught more widely. This he considers like any R & D done in a lab for developing a product.” R & D is when something is being developed from scratch. Tantra have been practiced for millenniums in India. All he had to do was become a shishya of tantric guru.

Some nuggets of wisdom is thrown in, which may come handy later- “My ‘sense’ is that he did practice Tantra with a very small number of persons, and I ‘believe’ that he even entered into written legal contracts… “

Followed by speculations about Ranchita- “Based on third party reports from some persons who are in touch with her,… She took the sexual initiative with him on the occasion shown in the videotape (was it different on other occasions ?), at a time when he was not fully alert (true. he seemed to be engrossed in televison). But this activity did not proceed to intercourse. It was terminated.” So essentially Ranchita, in absentia, is the sacrificial goat, ‘She did it!’.

So in the worst case, this was consensual sex between adults, and that too backed by a formal written contract between the parties.” Actually, it is in the best case that it is consensual sex. In the worst case it is very many other things; such as adultery(with a married woman), duplicitous behavior (showing the face of brahmachari to millions outside and going against that in private) etc. But there is another plant here, which is- “that too backed by a formal written contract between the parties“. What was earlier speculated by Mr Malhotra as “I believe that he even entered into written legal contracts” is now taken as proof enough.

At the end of these speculations Rajiv Malhotra has the good grace to admit that “my moral issue is about the lack of transparency before the public. there could also be the alternative scenario, namely, that this was mere lust packaged as Tantric spirituality” Wonder why the investigative researcher did not then probe that scenario deeper. Does it have to do with the fact that his forthcoming book is all about how ‘hinduism’ is under attack from outside, and not how it is being hollowed out from within by ‘practitioners’, due to which he will turn a blind eye to the latter ?

About his first meeting with Rajasekaran-“I found him to be very sharp, a great listener, and in agreement that we must engage social issues rather than pursuing the “world negating” or “escapist” paths that are typical of many gurus today“. Point may be noted- if you are in agreement with Shri Malhotra, you may escape being termed ‘world negating’ or ‘escapist’.

On a weekend course in USA “Swami Nithyananda gave the attendees their own personal inner experience“. If it was “their own personal inner experience“, is it correct to say Rajasekaran gave it? Or if Rajasekaran gave it, then how would it be “their-own-personal-inner-experience” ? Or is it that Rajasekaran is considered here as ‘God’, capable of giving people “their own personal inner experience” ?

Some self-congratulatory nuggets- “It was a two-way street. While he taught me meditation, I brought to him my scholarship …” “I felt that he and I had a peer relationship, each side being an expert in his domain to teach the other.”

And perhaps the reason why he felt to rush to the aid of Rajasekaran. “No other guru in the world has invested so much time with me to try and learn these global issues so deeply.” and “my primary interest in Swami Nithyananda was as a vehicle to spread greater awareness of the kinds of issues that I was researching“. So it was truly a two-way street. Birds of a feather flock together ?

Explaining why he chose to focus on the criminal charges in his interview with Rajasekaran avoiding the more infamous issue of sex tapes- “ I was unable to discuss the sexual acts shown in the videotapes. I had to respect the policies of his people….” Fine, and what were those policies ? “Their policy on the sex tapes was that Swami Nithyananda would directly explain his acts.” Duh! Then why wasn’t the Reverend asked the relevant questions ?

Tamil actress’ … sensitivities had to be respected. The sensitivities of the 140-strong ashramites had to be protected .” Nice to have ‘investigative researchers’ respecting sensitivities so much as to leave important questions unasked. By the way the said actress’s sensitivities were ‘respected’ by Rajivji a while back in this manner- “Based on third party reports… She took the sexual initiative with him on the occasion shown in the videotape, at a time when he was not fully alert.

According to him criminal charges became the focus of his interviews instead of the sex tapes for two reasons-“The evidence was more clear-cut than the evidence on what exactly happened in the videotapes.” How much more “clear cut evidence” of an event can there be other than its video recording, Mr Investigative researcher ?

Secondly, the consequences of criminality would be far more severe than mere moral fallibility.” Isn’t ‘criminality’ itself a consequence of ‘moral fall’ ?

While immoral conduct is a big concern for the devotees, it is not enough grounds by itself for the state to confiscate the entire property that runs into very large sums of money.” Therefore is it “the entire property that runs into very large sums of money” that is more important than morality ?

YouTube wrote to him that he was the most watched of all Indian spiritual leaders on the Internet and proposed a closer collaboration for their viewers.” Nowadays it is of course YouTube and Twitter that provide standards for legitimacy, not the integrity of the person.

Then follows some promotion of his forthcoming book “Since I had arrived at the scene while writing my book on the conspiracy in Tamil Nadu religious politics, it was natural to start with that as my emphasis for the investigation…“.

For instance, one of his top devotees got a phone call from someone based in New York describing the media and police attack that was to come. His predictions turned out to be accurate.. He said that… He claimed that ….He mentioned that … A lawyer contacted them and claimed that … There were warnings given to individuals… One friendly man based in Pune …told the ashram a week in advance of the attack… Another publisher in Hyderabad … called three times to warn… There were constant threats received to harass the ashramites and scare them away…”
Essentially it was all a conspiracy. and sex was tantric.

Then some gems regarding varna- “The Brahmin job description focuses on spirituality and research…”. ‘Job description!’. Being a brahmana is a job. Not a pursuit, not a way of life, not about realization of brahma. Only a job. And he gets paid for it. And perhaps, there is pension too. That is the ‘modern’ thinking.

Then,- “Swami Nithyananda had persons with Brahmin qualities performing duties that demand Kshatriya and Vyshya skills.” How was this conclusion arrived at ? Surely not based on what followed the expose-” his organization was in utter chaos, reacting to each “hit” by the other side. Its leaders were running scared, driven by one rumor after another. Decisions were being made in desperation and panic. The group was cognitively disoriented and many of its members were psychologically breaking down.” That description seems to fit people caught with their pants down (figuratively speaking), not people focussed on spirituality and research, the job description of ‘Brahmins’.

Further- “The organization was too much of a one-man show with the leaders operating like children dependent on the swami for every decision.” That sounds more like how Sudra behave, not spiritual researcher ‘Brahmins’. So on what basis did Shri Malhotra conclude earlier that “Swami Nithyananda had persons with Brahmin qualities” in his ‘ashram’ ?

Then he touches the core issue- “This is classical cult-like also can also get into the leader’s head and make him power hungry. Especially when the guru has siddhis, this power can easily become co-opted by his ego into a dangerous mixture… I noticed this in the form of the inner circle’s inability to make common sense judgments, and their misrepresenting the facts to their leader …the honest truth did not come out fast enough …I had a difficult time to get dependable information, and the stories kept changing not only over time but also between one person and another within the group. I could not tell if there was a cover up and if new lies were fabricated to cover prior lies..” Are these the same people who were earlier described as having ‘Brahmin’ qualities ?

He winds up thus-“being a global guru is very demanding today, given that one has to represent a very old tradition authentically and yet in a manner that appeals to modern people. This is why Hindu leaders need a crash course on matters that are well beyond the traditional education in their own sampradayas“. In short, do they need to enter into a ‘peer relationship’ with Mr Malhotra to live up to the “very demanding” job of representing a very old tradition authentically in a manner that appeals to ‘modern’ people ? Few points may be noted here- (1) Regarding the job profile of a guru- A guru today has to represent ‘a very old tradition authentically’. So if you are not representing ‘a very old tradition’ (old enough to meet Malhotraji’s standards), you probably do not make the cut. (2) ‘And yet in a manner that appeals to modern people’. There you go. Wanna be new age guru, make it appealing to ‘modern people’ (‘modern’ as in ‘worker bee for western conglomerates’). (3) The traditional education in their own sampradayas being what it is, Hindu leaders need a crash course on matters that are well beyond its boundary walls. A preliminary reading of ‘Invading the Sacred’ (purchased at full price, mind you) may help. Later, wait for Malhotraji’s new book release.

He reveals- “My overriding concern throughout this investigation has been to find a way to do damage control in order to protect the broader interests of dharma.” The broader interests of Dharma, it may be noted, depends on ‘damage control’ efforts.

Of course “This requires a pragmatic approach“, not dharmic approach. Thus the pragmatic approach is that “Swami Nithyananda should resign immediately and hand over all his organizations to senior spiritual masters“. Why because- “it would be a better outcome than the likely alternative of the government stepping in to take over the ashram“. Thus dharma is in ensuring that the ashram properties are not lost to government, which is what is material anyway.

He finishes with some rhetoric- “Hinduism has survived for many millennia and faced many kinds of crises, just like all the other major religions of the world.” Many millennia means at least two millenniums or more. Is there any record of anything called ‘hinduism’ being present at that time, that lends credibility to such a statement? Such as, does Ramayana or Mahabharata or the Vedas mention about ‘hinduism’ ? Further, is there any record that this so-called hinduism faced many kinds of crisisses, or is it Malhotraji’s conclusion on somebody’s say so ?

just like all the other major religions of the world“. If he means it is like the cults of christianity and islam, that is reason enough to discard it.

“…they need to become modernized.” Modernized, as in ‘civlized’ ? Did the white man’s burden change hands to the NRI ?

This is not the last such scandal Hindu groups are going to face in the near future“( Buy my forthcoming book to know more).

BTW, Shri Rajiv Malhotra’s various contributions towards rejuvenation of indic traditions is probably unparalleled in recent times, at least on the net. Nevertheless, if this article is any indicator, his west-influenced approach towards solutions may turn indic traditions into, like what he mentioned above in his article-“just like all the other major religions of the world”. Thing is, the so-called major religions of the world, particularly, christianity and islam, have a bloody history of subversion, cult-like behaviour, dogmatism, deception and zero contribution towards realization or empowering people (as different from mobs). The same is the case with capitalistic or communist tendencies, both of which survive on brainwashing people (yes, capitalism too, through advertisements. Moreover, it was capitalists like East India Company, Hudson Bay Company etc., that created imperialism and slavery).

So it is unavoidable that dharma be given the deserving consideration in all matters over the so-called ‘pragmatic’ or ‘modern’ approaches, which are essentially poor excuses for ‘adharma’. dharma is concerned with morality more than siddhi, with integrity, more than material property, and with the rot within as much as with the attack from outside.

Rushing to the defence of swamis is noble. However, it should be genuine swamis. Integrity should be the criteria. Fighting for indic traditions against external forces is noble. Strengthening it from within, removing rot within is also necessary, else only the outer shell will be left with hollow inside. Engaging foes is necessary, becoming like them inadvertantly is not.

Related post- Feeding Cuckoo’s child

Nithya adharma

Rajasekara had sex with young women. Nothing wrong with that as such.

The crux of the matter is that Rajasekara claimed to be a brahmachari, that too, a ‘realized master’. Further, he had sex with disciples.

Four things emerge from this act.
One, Rajasekara was not a brahmachari as he claimed.
Second, he was not a ‘realized master’, who overcame carnal desires.
Third, he had sex with disciples. guru-shishya relationship should not have been sullied in this manner.
Fourth, he did his act wearing the color of renunciation- kAvi.

These facts reveal the following-

1. Rajasekara was a liar, in claiming to be brahmachari and realized master. That he carried out this charade for many years means that he is a habitual liar. That using this charade he hoodwinked thousands of people for many years means that he had developed duplicity as a character trait.

2. This person, despite knowing the symbolic value of kAvi as representing sublimation of desires in the fire of spiritual enquiry, wore that while he indulged himself in carnal pleasures, while he enjoyed food, while he engrossed himself in television. Rajasekara was disrespectful towards the kAvi, its symbolic meaning and the tradition that values it.

3. This person had no qualms in exploiting trust. The disciple in the video sincerely served this person in the belief that this person is a realized master and that serving such an enlightened person is correct. Rajasekara exploited that trust and encouraged the misconception of the disciple. This reveals Rajasekara to be a conscience-less selfish individual who will betray trust without compunction.

Yet, despite these revelations, many people still considers it appropriate to refer to this charlatan as ‘swami’. Sample-

Rajiv Malhotra interviews Swami Nithyananda

Swami Nithyananda or Spycam Journalism

Our “Liberal” Values – Part I

This tendency reveals three things: –

1. Inability to discern dharma.

2. Mis-identification with the so-called religion ‘hinduism’ that prompts extending support or consideration to one who has betrayed the values and ethos of bharatiya samskriti.

3. Rajiv Malhotra rushed to offer support to this charlatan. Similar to how Bhisma, who should have known better, fought for unrighteous Duryodhana in the field of Kurukshetra.

Feeding the Cuckoo

This episode reveals that otherwise right thinking people are allowing themselves be blindfolded with the label of ‘hinduism’, a cuckoo in the nest, placed by mleccha westerners.

The cuckoo child is growing and displacing the original progeny of this land, starving it and stifling it. Originally it looked similar to bharatiya samskriti, now it is starting to resemble its parent.

bharateeyas, blinded to consider it as the original progeny of this land, are striving hard to feed this imposter, while it cries voraciously for more and more.

Rajasekara and others mlecchas like him benefit from such efforts of the blindfolded bharateeyas.
Unfortunately this misplaced support and sympathy may further encourage such charlatans towards more duplicity. Duryodhana would not have gone to war but for the support from Bhisma, Drona, Kripa and Karna.

The final nail in the coffin of bharatiya sampada, so to speak, maybe hit not by westerners, or even their desi sepoys, but by the bharateeya who is unable to discern dharma and blindly feeds the mleccha cuckoo’s child.