Silencing the Indian Right Wing: A debate which must be needed.

Last Night I was watching a debate on The Hindu newspaper organized conclave “The age of Anger”. This debate was the part of the discussion where panelist was giving their view on raised anger amongst youth about grievance they had related to their view.

The discussion started with the introduction of panelist and well-known intellectuals:-

  1. Malini Parthasarathy: She is formal editor of The Hindu and Now she is Editor of The Hindu group.

  2. Dr. Subrahmanyam Swami: Well known economist, Lawyer, and Politician. He is a Hindutva supporter.
  3. Gurcharan Das: Author of many books on dharma and eminent intellectual.
  4. Abhinav Chandrachud: A Harvard lawyer and very sound in his subject.

The debate started with opening remarks where she said:-

 “In India, the political forces on the right of our spectrum have been unable to develop a proper world view that does not draw upon bigotry or prejudice. They are unable to gain traction in the political field without a reliance on communal polarisation and the invoking of a majoritarian cultural identity,” [1]

According to Malini, Right wing of India is failing to provide a worldview, their own idea of governance and their goal as a society. She blames that Right wing of India has played community polarisation and invoking majoritarian for power. She also accused that Right wing of India has failed to give provide their part of the argument to seculars.

On other Side, Dr. Subramanyam Swami reminds Malini how she had rejected his article on Hindutva for publishing while she speaks about providing the view of the right wing of India. He accused the secular and elite of India of being closed minded and not listening to the argument made by Hindutva-wadis.

He also clarifies that how a invisible discrimination exists in the elite class. where the voice of right-wing is systematically denied by Secular people. Moreover, he said that “Being secular does not mean that one has to abandon his religion. Secularism means separation of state and religion, Not the separation of the human from religion”

Subramanian Swamy, BJP MP, held the Constitution as the point of integration between conflicting ideologies. Today, society was divided into the Hindutva crowd, which did not want to talk to the Left, and a Left-leaning elite, which did not want to hear anything about Hindutva. “But both these crowds have to accept the Constitution,” he said.[1]

 

DWOOKaSW4AAKU8W.jpg
All four panelists: Moderator, Malini Parthasarathy, Dr. Subramanyam Swami, Gurucharan das and Abhinav Chandrachud (Left to Right)

 

The third panelist in the debate was Mr. Gurcharan Das. He shared his experience with the crowd. He recounts the three experience which actually states the misery of Hindus at large.

In One incident, he talked about his book “The difficulty of being good”. He said that how he is been tagged as “Hindutva” (a maligned term in the elite circle of India). The sole reason this discriminate tagging was he was writing a book on Mahabharat.

On another incident, he recollects that how an elite college called him for speak to elite people they gathered as part of the program. When the moderator asked him about the subject for which he was going to speak. He said he is going to talk about “Dharma”. On the instant, the reply of moderator was that “Please, don’t speak on this topic. You know that we have very secular people on the crowd who might be offended”. It is shown that the hatred of elites has crossed common logic about Dharma.

In the third incident, he speaks about the incident where an elite party was talking about sedition charges on JNU students. He found the there was a person who was not good at English and different viewpoint than the crowd. Gurucharan said that he was humiliated by the crowd for having the different viewpoint. later, the person left the party.

He said that

I see an arrogance in the English-speaking, secular class. In fact, there is no bigger divide than the one between those who think and speak in English and those who do that in the vernacular,” Gurcharan Das, author and commentator, said. It is but inevitable that people who did not speak English felt a sense that the upper classes had robbed them of the benefits of development.

Conclusion:

We need to accept that, the biggest right of human is freedom of speech. In the current world, Ultra left has control of the gates of knowledge and Institution. It is almost impossible for people who wanted to present right-wing view because they systemically denied by elites. We must have removed the control of Left-leaning intellectuals from the institution.

Silencing the Right wing can be very problematic for both communities of India. A dialogue must be taken place between, Hindus and Muslims. Elites and Hindi class, Left and right wing. But It seems that still, intellectuals didn’t get their lessons.


Reference:

  1. The abiding supremacy of the Constitution
  2. Age of anger: the polarization in public discourse

Similar Blogs:-

Hindutva Vs Hinduism- Short Note

Hindu Phobia in Indian Intellectuals Mind

What is the difference between a leftist and a liberal?


Disclaimer- Term and Condition