Distinguishing between Hindu and Hindutva, manufacturing of literature and creating an aura of intolerance, using terms like majoritarian autocracy and regressive mind-set of the native populace, have been the key to make Indians submissive and conceding towards anyone and everyone who has dreamt of ruling over India and Indians. Be it the British before independence or the crony left leaning intellectuals who have been controlling the cultural and academic segments in the country. The brainwashing over the last two centuries has been calculated and systematic and has ensured that Indians, especially the majority population (Hindus) continue to remain meek, diminutive and conceding, incapable of challenging the left which thrives on this submissive behaviour of the people.
This is not the first time that this kind of strategy has been employed and certainly not the last time. The same had been employed for the state of Israel, where a distinction was made between Jews and Zionists, the latter being aggressive nationalistic people, usually used in a negative context. The self-proclaimed secular liberal diaspora have tried applying and over the years have been largely successful in the Indian context by badgering Hinduism for being intolerant and regressive and subsequently by giving negative connotations to Hindutwa by way of their films, books, seminars and conferences.
All of this with the ultimate motive of establishing a firm left rule in the country which is pro-socialist, anti-democratic and anti-capitalist. The above, hopefully creating a negative impression of the country in the international waters, which might also have a greater impact on the investments being made in the country.
The left since 2014 have had to counter the surge in people actively following their culture and religion and that has probably hurt their propaganda the most. Years and years of hard work to cut off Hindus from their culture, history and heritage down the drain because of one person – Narendra Damodardas Modi, the chai wala. The only way to do that was to create an atmosphere of extremist Hindutva by highlighting stray incidents of vigilantism as the mind-set of the majority.
One of many such leaders/activists is cinema actor Prakash Raj, who has been proclaiming to be a Hindutva hater. Mr. Raj, like most of his comrades has miniscule knowledge of Hinduism and India but goes on a rampage time and again against anyone and everyone who share any proximity to the word Hindu. He protested against the central government for Gauri Lankesh’s murder along with the JNU brigade, while completely negating the fact that the government responsible was that of the Congress in the state. He also completely ignored the countless murders of RSS and BJP workers in the state over the last 2 years but bluntly advocated his stand of Hindutva being responsible for the apparent intolerance in the country. Ironically, Gauri’s brother was seen campaigning for the BJP a few days back, which would have disappointed the leftists a great deal.
Coming back to the issue at hand, Prakash Raj had time and again accused RSS, BJP, Modi and the so called communal forces for the rising intolerance in the country and with Karnataka elections round the corner, the time was right for him to unleash the venom and drive home a point for the liberals by speaking up against Hindutva.
It is presumed that when a person exudes the confidence to clash and challenge one of the sharpest minds in the country, he must have done his homework and have the substance and rationale behind his arguments. The same was the case with Prakash Raj too, until the debate with Dr. Swamy where he had so many embarrassing moments that people almost started comparing the 52 minutes of torture he endured at the hands of Dr. Swamy with the infamous Rahul Gandhi interview with Arnab Goswami in 2014.
The beginning of the end for Prakash Raj’s political career which ended even before it began:
The stage was set to welcome and facilitate the entry of Indian cinema’s most prolific actors as the intellectual that the Indian media and the liberals were desperately looking for. Prakash Raj, the famous cinema actor who had played innumerable roles with each bettering the previous one was granted the opportunity to put forth his stand during the recently held conclave in Bangalore in the midst of the frenzy of the Karnataka election where politicians on either side were leaving no stone unturned to sling mud at each other. While Raj had been pretty vocal about his stand against the present day government and his special affection for the JNU brigade of Omar Khalid & Co, people still had hopes of him putting up a solid stance against the apparent communal forces of BJP and RSS, now that the opportunity had come knocking at his door with the time being right for him to make the right statements and enter the main foray of Karnataka Politics.
Nobody, not even the biggest of his cynics would have forecasted that the aftermath of that debate would completely change the picture for the BJP and Prakash Raj, except for Dr. Subramanian Swamy. Of all the people, Rahul Shivshankar, editor-in-chief of Times now pitted Prakash Raj against Dr. Swamy to debate on the topic “Why do liberals fear Hindutva”.
Raj’s immaculate speech and perfect voice modulation to suit his statements had till now earned him a lot of media coverage and love from the liberal quarters but challenging Dr. Swamy was a first. It was evident from the outset that Prakash Raj had a set agenda of aggressively advocating his stand on the premise that there was an air of intolerance in this country because of the communal Hindutva forces led by Modi and Amit Shah.
He seemingly had 5 cards up his sleeves which he hopelessly and desperately used in vain to attack Dr. Swamy:
Gau- Mutr (Cow Urine)
Beef ban
Lynching of minorities
RSS’s attempt to polarize Indian society
Fear propagation and victimhood
The session started with Prakash Raj confidently beginning his onslaught against what he called the rising menace of Hindutva due to organisations like the RSS and people like Narendra Modi, Amit Shah and others. The monologue, although very passionate, lacked content and logic and Dr. Swamy picked up on all the loopholes that Raj left behind during his talk.
On being probed to justify his tall claims, Raj saw his argument being broken down piece by piece by Dr. Swamy who left no stone unturned at pointing out Prakash Raj’s ignorance towards the issue. Dr. Swamy was cold, calculative and razor sharp in his approach while countering the allegations made by Raj.
At one point in the debate, Prakash Raj raised a point stating that since the time BJP had come to power, the fundamental right to eat beef had been imposed which was a sign of the rising intolerance of the Hindutva forces. Dr. Swamy on this point took it upon himself and schooled not only Raj, but also the audience on the interpretation of the Constitution laying down the difference between fundamental rights and Directive Principles. As per Article 48 read with Article 37 of the Constitution it was the duty of the government to implement and enforce the Directive Principles. If killing and eating peacock or a black buck was an offence punishable with imprisonment then why not the killing of cows to which no one had any counter.
As the debate progressed, Raj in his mocking and sarcastic tone pointing a reference at Dr. Swamy said, “Why do you want a Hindu Rashtra, and what will ´´You People´´ do when the hindu rashtra has been established, would you kick out all the non-Hindus.” He also asked Dr. Swamy, “Should the Middle Eastern countries declare themselves as Muslim Rashtra, and should Australia declare itself a Christian Rashtra?”.
The questions asked by Raj made little sense, considering the fact that the middle-eastern countries were already declared as Muslim Rashtras and Australia has always been a Christian country (rashtra). Inspite of this ignorance showcased by Prakash Raj, Dr. Swamy clarified that acknowledging one’s Hindu ancestry had no reference to any one being thrown out of the country. In fact India and Hinduism had for time immemorial been the most tolerant towards other religions be it the sheltering of Jews, Zoroasts or the felicitation of Islam and Christianity for them to be freely propagated in the country.
Prakash Raj who until that day, had always had the free run of saying what he wanted without being countered so aggressively was taken aback and chose to counter this aggression with mockery in the form of “Kuch Bhi ”.
Noticing how Dr. Swamy was driving home points after points, the mediator, Mr. Rahul Shivshankar tried balancing the debate by bringing up the Ram Mandir issue, but here too, instead of helping himself, Prakash Raj chose to shoot himself in the foot. Dr. Swamy while answering the issue also pointed towards Raj’s hypocrisy since he had all the time to question the Ram Mandir controversy but had absolutely gone blind when it came to seeking answers on the demolition of 47,000 premier Hindu temples or the persecution of the 5 Lakh Kashmiri Pandits.
Conclusion:
Until this debate, it would not have been possible to gauge the rationale and logic behind Raj’s extreme statements which aimlessly fired against anybody supporting the cause of Hinduism. But thanks to this debate, he along with his supporters have been thoroughly exposed and the people now can clearly see biased and prejudicial approach of Prakash Raj and the likes who follow him.
This debate has possibly cost Congress more than they can imagine, and has tilted more support in favour of the BJP. Apart from this, the smaller issue of Prakash Raj´s future possible political career has gone down the drain.
As for people who disregard the destruction of thousands of temples and the forced suppression of Hinduism by foreign invaders and yet think that Hinduism is intolerant towards other religions, a quick read of any of S.L Bhyrappa’s writings would help in rationalising this:
“We are not responsible for the mistakes committed by our previous generations. However, if we equate ourselves with them and regard ourselves as their heirs, we must then be ready to also share the responsibility for their mistakes. We won’t attain maturity unless we cultivate the wisdom to discriminate which deeds our ancestors we need to reject and which achievements we need to take inspiration from.”
