The popularity of period dramas such as Downton Abbey, Bridgeton and Peaky Blinders demonstrate the nostalgia for a bygone age. They bring glamour, certainty and defined reference points at a time of uncertainty and the amorphous ethics of woke totalitarianism.
Of course, they also show a society that was defined by race and class. Unfortunately, the actors within the western colonialist defined Hindu narrative seem intent on keeping this bygone age alive with their actions and mentality. Now this psychological and behavioural degeneracy is obvious in the so-called Hindu organisations as it is in their detractors. Indeed if we look beneath the veneer it is hard to tell them apart. Just as with left and right wing political viewpoints, the demarcation is not very strict. Indeed it is often non-existent.
On both left and right, India and Hindus are castigated for the unequal caste system. The only difference is that sometimes the ‘right’ actually supports it as a means to both racial and class inequality. Here we encounter the first problem. Caste was never based on race.
As for class, well we can play mind games all day on this subject. After all, who wrote the American constitution that said “All men are created equal”? Washington, Jefferson and a bunch of other white slave owners. Who has traditionally dominated British politics? The ‘old school tie’ of Eton and Oxbridge educated elite. Who dominates the system in France?
Those that went through elite schools to become technocrats. Now who wrote the constitution of India? Dr Ambedkar, who came from the Dalit caste known as Mahar.
Who is the prime minister right now? Narendra Modi who comes from the backward caste Ganchi community who left school at 14 to work. Who is the president? Ram Nath Kovind who came from the Dalit community known as Koli and was raised in a mud hut. Yet the right-wing conservatives in western nations routinely join hands with their Marxist influenced detractors on the Left to denounce India’s right-wing, Hindu hardline , upper caste government which does not even exist.
Strangely among the forefront of those denouncing Hindu fascism, fundamentalism and even the very existence of Hindu culture are India’s Anglophone educated elite. Despite being brainwashed by colonial Marxism we do find that people with Brahmin names are prominent in these organisations to fight the mythical oppression of Brahminism and hardline Hinduism.
Much like their hero Karl Marx’s father Herschel Levi who came from a line of rabbis, but converted to Christianity in order to enter the legal profession in Prussia and became Heinrich Marx. Karl Marx himself was of course to become rabidly antisemitic while providing his detractors the excuse that communism was Jewish because of his rabbinical heritage.
It is a template for these Indians of Brahmin ancestry who find in their Marxist tribe a new elite caste who will remake the world with failed social engineering projects.
One of their major facets is that they are so concerned about the human rights of anyone and everyone, except Hindus. Anyone who dares transgress this is cancelled. It is something they share with conservatives and those who are on the Right.
Indeed with regards to the Hindu threat and Hindu backwardness, there would be much to unite Arunadhati Roy, Priyamvada Gopal, Christophe Jaffrelot, and Audrey Trushke with David Horowitz and Douglas Murray. After all as Churchill notoriously quipped: “I hate Indians. They are a beastly people, with a beastly religion.” That beastly path was Hinduism.
In the UK and USA Hindu organisations like to boast about how influential their ‘community’ is, with disproportionate members in medical, legal and other professional fields, even down the hard-working family who runs the local corner shop.
Hence they feel immune from attack and especially privileged because of the vital services they provide.
Of course when it comes down to it this did not save the Jews from Europe when it came to the Holocaust, the Native American scouts from being put on reservations by their white masters, or the African slave traders being castigated as racially inferior by the white slave ship owners. In various aspects all the above provided ‘vital’ services.
Some Hindu self-appointed Leaders are therefore very keen to deny there is Hinduphobia, because to do so would be to play the victim card, thereby linking them to communities and social groups which are seen to have a greater problem with crime and state benefits dependency.
On the other hand, the politically correct left-wing and right-wing woke outfits deny that Hinduphobia exists at all. Instead, they claim it is issues of race, ethnicity or social class which makes Hindus victims of hate; and even this is begrudgingly acknowledged if they are Hindus.
While many people of Hindu and Indian background work in NGOs, human rights organisations and charities, these lack a Hindu element that is not the case with parallels in what are called ‘faith’ communities.
They also seem very keen to downplay any victims of specifically anti-Hindu hate; or in the case of the Sabarmati Express and genocide of Hindus in Kashmir, actually, blame the victims. This is because in their westernised chimerical narrative being ‘victims’ makes them inferior. That explains their refusal to acknowledge what are historical facts, and the situation at present.
They send their own children to elite schools especially those with a Christian ethos, both in India and UK. Now in India these schools were set up and continue to be set up to brainwash the heathen masses into being self-alienated and deracinated.
In Australia, America and Canada they forced the native heathens into such schools for over a century. In India the so-called Hindu elite are so brainwashed they do this voluntarily like lemmings jumping over a cliff.
It is a matter of pride among the Hindutva leadership that their children went to the same types of schools in which generations of First Nation Canadians were systematically, abused, raped and murdered, along with the low-level attacks of them being forced to disown their own languages, beliefs, social structure in the name of progress.
This of course ignores the fact that Hinduphobia has been explicitly documented since the nineteenth century. While the term ‘Hindu’ could also have ethnic dimension, within this there was also the understanding that ‘Hindu’ represented something backward, demonic and different. In essence, they were right about the latter because Hindu cosmology retains a world view that is in stark contrast to the linear time view of monotheism which underpins western civilisation. Since Christianity and Islam, as well as secular offshoots are part of the linear paradigm, this is a clash of civilisations in which Hindu beliefs and practices are the diametric opposite of what is accepted as normal.
A life of service was normal in the UK until after the Second World War, and the changes it brought. The welfare state, free health care, educational reforms and a growing economy provided greater opportunities for working-class people. There was more social mobility, and being a maid or butler was no longer seen as something desirable. Across the western world, similar changes were afoot.
Of course, the mentality as exhibited in the classic BBC drama Upstairs Downstairs or the movie Remains of the Day, was imprinted on colonial people’s psychology. It remained frozen in time even as those countries became independent. All that happened was the colour of the ruling elite changed. The mentality of rulers and ruled became entrenched.
In India, caste quotas are not a mechanism for social mobility and equality. They are the desperate hunger games where the winner takes all to be part of that elite, and elite which is largely Anglophone and attempts to ape the worst aspects of the west initially via refracted images on television and film, and now through social media.
As with many countries, corruption remains a problem in India. As each election promise is made to root it out, it just gets more intertwined into the normality of things. Without recourse to the local political mechanisms, even at the base level, everything comes to a halt. While elections exist, this democratic framework does not impinge on the sultanism and kelptocracy.
Now, this is very important to get to grips with if we are to understand the behaviour of anti-Hindu organisations and even the Hindu ones. The anti-Hindu human rights woke lobby imbibe the racist colonialist narrative of an Aryan invasion causing the caste system and Hinduism became the most oppressive belief mechanism on the planet.
Calling such views left or right-wing makes no difference because it is basically the same across the political spectrum. But what is most intriguing is how much this is shared with the very Hindu organisations they claim to be against. Hindu organisations run to curry favour from MPs in patterns remarkably similar to how one has to run to the potwari, MLA, MP and various hangers on in India.
By pushing themselves as some sort of wealthy elite apart from the masses, these Hindu organisations give the anti-Hindu lobby all the fodder they need to make the case for upper-caste Hindu oppression and fascism. Doing anything else is demeaned as ‘dirty work’, especially being active on the street, campus or other methods to tackle the prevailing narrative.
Meanwhile, the actual organisations and individuals pushing Hinduphobia deny it exists because that will expose their own prejudices; which of course they deny they have because that hate thinking is rejected as having any validity. But both wings seek validation from their ‘masters’. It is just that the anti-Hindu outfits are keen to be seen as open, progressive, democratic, and keen to make change.
Of course at one point so did eugenics, apartheid and race science; the very toxic mix from which Hinduphobia spewed out. However, on balance, it is the Hindu organisations that resemble the loyal butler, unable to think for himself and who has a scant personality independent of the lord of the manor.
Like Stephen on the plantation of Calvin Candy in Django Unchained, who only has authority because Master Candy allows it. Outside of the estate, he is just another slave. No matter how inferior Candy sees him, when he is shot dead, Stephen mourns.
His whole world has fallen apart by the death of this white supremacist. Hindu organisations keep this mix of being self-important yet acting like slaves. Herein lies the paradox. While trying hard to play ‘victim’ they try equally as hard to play the oppressed slave. They claim they were conquered and subjugated for hundreds of years. The reality is of course different.
While other countries feel easily to foreign invaders, India did not. This is easily forgotten. Alexander the Great halted at India. Later Greeks, and the Kushanas and Shakas became part of the mainstream. Islam conquered across the Middle East and Maghreb, even into Europe.
But in India its sword was dented. Akbar was only able to make the Mughal empire exist due to abolition of jizya and alliance with Hindu Rajputs. Once that unravelled under Aurangzeb, the edifice fell. The British only conquered by using local sepoys. They left once the unquestioned loyalty of Indian soldiers could no longer be taken for granted.
Many parts of the world have been under some sort of foreign rule. England was shaped into a nation by Norse and later Normans. Vikings founded Dublin in Ireland. The Russian state was first born in Kyiv by Swedish invaders. This embryonic Russia was itself under Mongol rule for 200 years. China’s last imperial dynasty of Ching were Manchus. Southern Italy was at one point ruled variously by the Normans, Arabs and Spain. Yet with Hindus the narrative is taken as normal that they were ruled. The left-wing organisations that target Hindus propagate this on a par with so-called Hindu organisations.
This belies the fact that for most of its history India was never part of a foreign empire or foreign rulers. Parts of it were, but then how is this any different to Danelaw in England at the time of Alfred the Great? David Horowitz claims that before British rule India was a land of infighting between hundreds of tribes and kingdoms. This left-wing radical turned neoconservative is obviously ignorant of the Mahabharata, the ancient epic whose very name means ‘Great India’.
But it is a view that would be shared with the very Marxist radicals of his youth from which Horowitz disassociates on other issues. This is because it perpetuates the Hindus were slaves myth. To say otherwise would mean acknowledging that there was a greater civilisation and culture than the west. This is against orthodoxy. It is of course not against the reality, something which neither Hindu organisations nor the anti-Hindu outfits can stomach. It would after all means acceptance of Hinduphobia, which would break the present western imperialist paradigm. It would also go against the present Hindu mentality which was forged as a survival instinct, party under colonial rule, but in fact, enhanced by the neo-colonialist kleptocrats which replaced the British Raj decades ago.
Use of the term ‘Hinduphobia’ – 1866-1997
Video : Hinduphobia – A Media Studies Perspective by Professor Vamsee Juluri
Video – Hinduphobia Tour Report : (SOAS) University of London
And Even More, Just Click >> #Hinduphobia