Open Letter to Barkha Dutt from a Social Media Sanghi communal troll

Posted on February 23, 2016

Dear Barkha Dutt,

I write to you because like so many fellow citizens, I am both angry and anguished. I am aware that a missive from someone like me – “Internet Hindu”, “Social Media troll” , “hyper nationalist communal sanghi” and worst of all, “Modi toadie” – will be most likely junked by you as not worthy of your time.

While I read through your open letter, I struggled to understand why you felt the need to quote your “illustrious career” trying to prove your patriotism. Something against which, your entire article is based. However, the career milestones stated by you, have been countered time and again. From 26/11 coverage, to Kargil to Pathankot. I wouldn’t go on as I’m but an ordinary citizen and I certainly wouldn’t want you to get offended enough to pull a Chaitanya Kunte on me.

You write :

‘The Home Minister went so far as to link students to the dreaded Lashkar terrorist Hafiz Saeed, based on a police endorsement of a fake Twitter account”.

I tried extremely hard to find a reason as to why the said twitter account of Hafiz Saeed was fake. I found none, except that account no longer existed and that the dreaded terrorist, Hafiz Saeed (who also denies his roles in the 26/11 terrorist attack) said he made no such statement. I find it quite staggering how you, as a journalist, are more inclined to believing the explanation provided by a Pakistani terrorist and not your own police force. However, since I personally don’t have any proof as to whether that account was fake or real, let us assume your premise is true and that the account quoted by the police force was fake.

Is it so unbelievable that a terrorist who orchestrated a deadly terrorist attack on Indian soil would agree, even endorse “Bharat ke tukde honge, Inshallah Inshallah” slogans raised at JNU? Well, if it is unbelievable to you Barkha, you should perhaps watch the statement issued by Pakistan Foreign Office spokesperson Mr. Muhammad Nafees Zakria who said extended his support the sloganeering JNU students by saying “Kashmiris never accepted the unfair trial of Afzal Guru”.

Further, Rajnath Singh never mentioned that his statement was based on a tweet, and later the HMO even clarified saying that his statement was based not on the tweet plugged by the police, but on specific intel inputs. I wonder if you didn’t know about his clarification, or you just chose to ignore it.

You wrote :

“Not just have we not seen any evidence of terror links, but it now appears that the video used to slap sedition charge on Kanhaiya Kumar, the JNU student leader, has been doctored, with the audio spliced onto images from a different day”.

Now here is where my admiration lies for your skills of obfuscation and how brilliantly you weave two lies into one to make it sound like an irrefutable truth.

When you talk of “No terror links”, you conveniently forget to speak about Umar Khalid and focus on Kanhaiya Kumar so as to paint the entire crackdown on JNU elements as not only unsympathetic and motivated, but fascist. Umar Khalid is said to have links to the JeM. He reportedly called Bangladesh, Kashmir and the Gulf countries several times in the week preceding the 9th February events. There was even a UPA report about how DSU is the front organization for Maoists and it was discussed extensively on the “hyper nationalist” channel, Times Now. Umars father was the ex chief of SIMI who had said “Taliban was attacked without evidence” and “If there exists an outfit called LeT, I have not come across it”. Umar himself had written about how the ban on SIMI (Students Islamic movement of India) should be lifted. (SIMIs stated objective is “Liberation of India from western materialistic cultural influence and to convert its Muslim Society to live according to the Muslim code”).

There are many such IB inputs regarding Umar Khalid’s terror links that other “hyper nationalist” channels have been talking about incessantly. So for you to say “We have seen no evidence of terror links” with respect to Kanhaiya Kumar, and to complete ignore the terror links of Umar Khalid reeks of either unimaginable ignorance, or a desperation to prove your misplaced point with regards to the JNU crackdown by muddying the pool of truth. In any case, why are you so desperate to conduct a media-trial and exonerate all the accused?

The second part of the blatant lie is that the sedition charges that were slapped on Kanhaiya, are based on the doctored video that emerged later. The only statement that was made by Mr. Bhim Bassi is that Kanhaiya Kumar is guilty of sedition and that the police has enough proof. Hence, your assumption, is baseless and seems extremely motivated to garble the entire debate around the JNU issue.

Somewhere in that consortium of lies that you call an article, Barkha, you write that in a country like ours, where even Kasab got a fair trial, Kanhaiya was slapped around in court in the presence of police that failed or perhaps refused to protect him.

Again, I applaud your remarkable talent to intertwine an established fact with a blatant lie to present a half baked fallacious statement that at best, only serves your personal agenda and skewed narrative.

Yes. Kasab was hanged to death after a fair trial. A fair trial that began after he was arrested by the police and the charges were framed based on evidence available. That, Barkha, is the standard procedure. It’s funny how you talk as if Kanhaiya has already been convicted without a trial, when right now, he has only been arrested based on evidence with the trial yet to commence.

The second, ridiculous lie in that statement of yours, is that the police refused to protect him in court.

What you and your channel NDTV called “dragged and kicked by lawyers” was actually super cop Rajendra Singh escorting Kanhaiya to court safely. To jog your memory, Rajendra Singh is the same super cop who solved the Nirbhaya case. You refused to report facts even after Mr. Bassi issued a clarification. You still choose to peddle the same lies after Kanhaiya’s statement lauding the Delhi police.

Right after you write about how since the slogans were against “Mother India” and mothers are benign and forgiving, the state shouldn’t be heartless towards seditious elements and forgive her children, you go on and on about how goons at the Patiala court house assaulted journalists and that the state did not take action.

My only concern here, Barkha, is how easily you expect the state to be forgiving and empathetic towards elements that show solidarity with a terrorist who orchestrated the attacked the symbol of Mother India’s sovereignty, the Parliament, but in the same breath demand the sternest action by the state against a handful of out of control lawyers who evidently assaulted journalists.

The law should take its course in both cases. Which it is by summoning the lawyers and by arresting Kanhaiya Kumar and looking for Umar Khalid (who is on the run) for their respective crimes in accordance with the law. You however, demand leniency and forgiveness for one (Anti state elements) and stern action against the other (out of control goons). The “heartlessness and hypocrisy” you lament, dear Barkha, is yours. Not the state’s.

There is a point in your “article” where you talk about how the “rowdy in robes are free” while the innocent students are being questioned about the whereabouts of Umar Khalid, calling the acts of the lawyers “anti constitutionalism”.

Barkha, the acts of hooliganism of the lawyers is certainly against the law, and action in accordance with the Indian Penal Code must be taken. But you fail to realize that it is within the ambit of the law for the police to try and find an absconding criminal wanted by the law agencies. The fact that the police is questioning Umar Khalid’s friends, is also standard procedure as per the law. Of course, it’s not a trolls business to teach the law to Varishth Patrakars like yourself, but when the keepers of facts start blurring the lines between truth and fiction, it becomes necessary.

You wrote :

“Might it not have been wiser and more mature to let the university administration tackle the issue”

Barkha, on 16th February, the “hyper nationalist” channels reported how a high powered enquiry panel of JNU had found Kanhaiya Kumar guilty in the anti-India event case of February 9th. A Times Now report said how 8 students had been suspended and 5 students are still on the run.

Now, considering you trust panels constituted by the varsity more than evidence collected by the police, if the panel constituted by the varsity itself had found Kanhaiya guilty, your entire premise falls flat and your demands for the cases against Kanhaiya being withdrawn are rendered useless.

Your entire article, Barkha, is a maze of misrepresentations and contradictions. It is a conundrum as to whether you want the state to follow the law or be benevolent. You seem to advocate state action when it suits your narrative and propagate benevolence and forgiveness when it doesn’t.

You wanted the state to leave it up to the university to take action against the students who threaten the sovereignty of the state, but propagate heavy handed action by the state against rogue lawyers who turned rowdy outside Patiala Court. You seem to hail the “peaceful march” held by other JNU students in support of fellow students charged with sedition, but black out March For unity by citizens and condemn a peaceful march held by lawyers in support of some other lawyers charged with causing hurt.

You lament how PM Narendra Modi maintained his silence on Dadri (a state law and order issue), and Rohit Vemula suicide (a university issue) and equate it with his silence on the JNU issue where your initial premise is that the state shouldn’t be involved at all. If you think the state shouldn’t be involved in the JNU sedition issue, then why would the PM speak, Barkha? And if you thought the state should have got involved in Dadri and Rohit Vemula suicide, why would you propagate that the state should not get involved in a much more serious issue like sedition?

You write, Barkha, that thought cannot be policed. Yet, you held the state responsible for a suicide, an extreme action which is a product of one’s extreme thoughts. You say that Nationalism cannot be regimented and that it’s for every Indian to define for herself. You said you were ashamed as an Indian at the Patiala Court incident. Yet, you insult citizens like me as “hyper nationalists” when we take severe offense to a bunch of seditionist goons demand “bandook ke dum par azaadi”, “bharat tere tukde honge, Inshallah” and “Afzal tere armano ko manzil tak pahuchayenge”. You went hammer and tongs against the lawyers when they questioned the nationalism of journalists. Yet, you suggest that citizens like me taking offense to anti national illegal slogans that call for the destruction of India’s sovereignty fall under the purview of freedom of expression. You suggest the state follows the law and takes action against rogue lawyers, even for slogans raised, But conveniently forget limitations to freedom of speech that rescind the freedom when it comes to protection of the sovereignty and integrity of the country.

You label the JNU protests as rebellious, non-conformist and anti-establishment. If you truly believe the premise you have spelt, it is tragic how misinformed you are. If you don’t, I applaud your insatiable capacity for motivated and dangerous propaganda. You fail to draw a difference between the lack of action against anti-establishment protests (however despicable) and anti-state intentions.

Afzal Guru was a terrorist, tried and hanged to death for the attack on Indian Parliament. The parliament, is the symbol of democracy and sovereignty of any country. When Afzal Guru attacked the Parliament, he attacked the very existence of our great democracy. When students want to fulfill the wishes of “martyr Afzal Guru”, they essentially want to the sovereignty and integrity of the nation to be reduced to dust. THAT, Barkha, isn’t rebellious or anti establishment.

You said :

“As long as this sloganeering is not accompanied by an incitement to violence, surely we need not use the sledgehammer of sedition against young people”

Thank you for this informed and balanced opinion after a long and tedious spider web of lies and false equivalences. Yes. Sedition charges are valid only when the sloganeering is accompanied by an incitement to violence. I’m sure as a reasonable person, you would agree that slogans like “bandook ke dum par azadi” and “Afzal tere armano ko manzil tak pahuchayenge” certainly, incite violence.

Subhash Chandra Bose, the man who paid with his life the country he lived for said :

Nationalism is inspired by the highest ideals of the human race, satyam [the true], shivam [the god], sundaram [the beautiful]. Nationalism in India has … roused the creative faculties which for centuries had been lying dormant in our people.

I urge you Barkha, to pursue the principles of satyam, shivam, sundaram in your journalism. I urge you, to report facts. I urge you to not malign the glorious sentiment of nationalism. I urge you, to not blur the lines between immorality and illegality.

Barkha, India belongs to its citizens who love her dearly. The tricolor is in our hands. And so is our future.
http://www.opindia.com/2016/02/open-letter-to-barkha-dutt-from-a-social-media-sanghi-communal-troll-2/

Published: February 27, 2016 10:15 IST | Updated: February 27, 2016 10:23 IST February 27, 2016

Congress firm on challenging BJP's version of nationalism

Mehboob Jeelani

PTI

HRD Minister Smriti Irani speaking in the Rajya Sabha on Friday.

Sonia has urged the party to fight the BJP and the RSS over the question of nationalism, sources said.

After Human Resource and Development Minister (HRD) Smriti Irani’s spirited defence against the two controversies that broke out in Hyderabad Central University (HCU) and Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), the Congress on Friday decided to remain firm on debating nationalism in Parliament.

Sources said that party president Sonia Gandhi made it clear that “the leadership agrees on principle that they must fight the BJP and the RSS over the question of nationalism.” On Wednesday evening, the party staged a walkout in the Lok Sabha before Ms. Irani began her speech, which was later applauded by Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

On Thursday, Deputy Leader of Opposition in Rajya Sabha, Anand Sharma, objected to Ms. Irani’s repeated attempt to debate Mahishasura, whom she referred to as a demon decapitated by Goddess Durga, saying that the Minister cannot bring up “blasphemous” narratives that are baseless and are confined to campuses.

Speaking to The Hindu, Mr. Sharma said the party is interested in debating nationalism as long as the ruling party doesn’t commit “blasphemy” or “misrepresent facts.”

“Why shouldn’t we discuss nationalism? And why shouldn’t we stop them from doing blasphemous talk?” said Mr.Sharma.

“India is a 83 % Hindu majority country. We don’t want religious sentiments to be hurt. Even if something was said about Prophet [Mohammad], Congress would not have kept quiet.”

Mr. Sharma said that the party is pleased to see that there is a “counter narrative” building against the ruling BJP. “You think followers of Nathuram Godse and Veer Savarkar don’t have a counter narrative in republic of India? Still 69 % of Indians voted against the BJP. Let’s not forget that.”

Printable version | Feb 27, 2016 1:24:31 PM | http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/congress-firm-on-challenging-bjps-version-of-nationalism/article8289098.ece

Under Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, the BJP led the only non-‐Congress government to last a full term in office since independence. During that period, particular politicized voices in India’s press corps produced an avalanche of newspaper articles hysterically critiquing all proposed governmental influence in education. They vehemently opposed each and every decision or appointment made by the BJP, generating unbridled fear of dreaded “Saffronization” leading to the destruction of a free and democratic India.

Antagonistic, very public debates and exclusivist, one-‐sided pronouncements were generated by multiple conferences and conclaves designed to warn the country of the dangers of Hindutva,
without actually examining BJP policies. Alarmist publications abounded regarding this controversial topic and the BJP’s perceived manipulation of historiography in India’s educational institutions. Certain members of the press amped up the anti-‐Hindu frenzy, warning of the supposed dire deleterious impact of all BJP policies.

Each decision, proposal, or appointment made by the BJP coalition government was met with immediate condemnation. Ten years later, with the advent of Narendra Modi, this anti-‐Hindu bias has been reborn with passion in particular media outlets. The same hysteria that characterized the narratives in the earlier BJP period has reincarnated in 2014. [This anti-‐BJP absolutism and hysteria is reminiscent of the unthinking Republican autopilot FOX News response to each and every one of Barak Obama’s ideas. The negative diatribes against Modi, as found in certain elements of the mainstream media in India, is a reflection of the automatic negative anti-‐Obama rhetoric inherent in the very nature of the news found on FOX.]

During the summer of 2000, amid the anti-saffron media mêlée, I was in India on an educational visa to continue my research into the politics of history in South Asia. Though, since my first visit in 1970, I had been to India several times over thirty years, I had come as a tourist and a pilgrim. I had even brought my children to India.

This was the first time that I had come on an “official” visit. In the nineties, I had had several opportunities for academic research in Pakistan and Bangladesh. I’d collected Social Studies textbooks and curriculum materials in order to compare differing interpretations of the vast historical record of the subcontinent, as narrated in these three nations of the Subcontinent. In this context, in 2000, I spent several weeks in Delhi interviewing officials at NCERT and ICHR, and historians, archeologists, educators, and other intellectuals interested in comparative historiography.

An investigation of narratives found in history textbooks can help illuminate political, social, and ideological imperatives that have impacted the evolution of a nation’s self image. These constructs and resulting mandates influence the narration of history and the writing of Social Studies curriculum. Through the medium of history textbooks, meant to educate future citizens, the development of a nation’s ideology can be seen unfolding through the decades-as political and social pressures change society and the nation’s self image evolves.

These readjustments in historical narratives, intended to correct perceived inadequacies or promote a particular perspective, are not unique to post-‐colonial nations that may feel additional pressures to reinvent themselves. The “rewriting of history” is common to all countries as they reevaluate international relations and redefine internal social structures in a world of changing identities, or simply to include new historical data arising from on-‐going research. In 2000, I was in India researching the contestations and contradictions found in different historical narratives, and to put various historical perspectives into ideological and political context.

The Hindu Nationalist = Nazism equation has been used without question for seventy years to blacken the face of the Sangh Parivar.

Fourteen years ago, during the hot humid days of July and August, I crisscrossed Delhi in autorickshaws and taxis, interviewing intellectuals theoretically grounded in their own points of view: Leftists, Marxists, neo-Marxists, former Marxists-now called Progressives, secular nationalists, socialists, Indian nationalists, Hindu nationalists, internationalists, and “Saffron” scholars.

Many historians said to be writing from a Marxist perspective, deny they are Marxists, preferring to say they are social progressives, fighting adamantly against, what they label, an obscurantist, right-wing communal slant to the interpretation of Indian history. Others, branded as representatives of the Sangh Parivar, often did not consider themselves to be in the Hindutva camp, but were colored Saffron simply because they were not Red.

Ironically, they were vilified for harboring “Hindu sympathies” in a predominantly Hindu country. The so-called Saffron scholars were accused of writing distorted Hindu-centric history while they themselves claim that they wrote non‐ideological history, correcting narratives whitewashed by the jargon of what they saw as pseudo-‐secularism, or inherited colonial paradigms. The Hindu-centric scholars claimed that a moralistic enforcement of dialectic materialism had dominated the field of history, denigrating Hindu culture and projecting an anti- nationalist discourse.

In fact, this anti-patriotic orientation was so institutionalized that until 2002, the common Indian citizen was not allowed to fly the tri-‐colors. (For me, having grown up around flag-‐waving patriotic Americans, this fact was astonishing, that a nation would actually prohibit the citizens from proudly flying the national flag! It was certainly an intriguing detail of governmental policies revealing the interface of ideology and politics.)

During the monsoon of 2000, I was in India in hopes of understanding and unraveling the acrimonious debates between contesting groups of scholars. In the heated academic atmosphere competing perspectives of India’s historiography was not just an issue of importance to octogenarian academicians. This topic was widely debated not only in the popular media, but debated profusely in academia.

When I visited the JNU campus the walls of the buildings were plastered with propaganda posters from different ideologically oriented student political organizations. One poster said, “Down with Marxism and Anti-‐Nationalist Rhetoric.” On the same wall, a bigger poster read, “Ban Communal Politics-Down with Fascism-Down with the BJP.” Hopefully the students at JNU had time left over from promoting political propaganda to study history.

Needless to say, during this hey-day of historical dispute, in Delhi in 2000, I had numerous stimulating conversations. I spoke with intellectuals who were as fascinated as I was by the highly inharmonious theoretical debates on the uses and abuses of history. It was an intellectually interesting moment to be studying polarized perspectives of the politicization of historiography.

A few days before I was scheduled to fly home in August, I was astounded when two respected scholars informed me, in all seriousness, that the vast “majority of elite students in India consider Hitler to be the greatest historical figure of the twentieth century.” This was reported to me as fact, sealing the indictment of the Sangh Parivar’s “negative influence on the youth of India“. I was told that “80% of the students” who have “recently graduated from schools such as St. Stephens” think “Hitler is the greatest person [or most important person, or most influential person] of the twentieth century”. This information was based on data collected by an eminent scholar, cited definitively as incontrovertible proof of the“Saffronization of Education”.

The Hindu Nationalist = Nazism equation has been used without question for seventy years to blacken the face of the Sangh Parivar. Regardless of its nominal inapplicability or historical accuracy, accusations of fascism are inevitably used against the RSS/VHP/BJP combine. References to fascism have long formed the core of the criticism against the Sangh Parivar. Objective analyses delineating how Hindutva is fascistic rarely surface, though there are countless publications based on those claims that simply use the phrase in an assumptive fashion, without real study of its applicability. Much as the term “Hindu Fundamentalism” continues to be in general use in the popular media, even though there is no agreement regarding a dogma that comprises the “fundamentals” of the diverse and vast scope of Hindu beliefs.

Opponents of the Sangh Parivar equate Saffron and Shakhas with Brown Shirts and SS Troops (SS = RSS, a convenient equation). In 2000 as in 2014, in their zealousness to discredit Hindutva, many scholars and journalists often knowingly perpetuate the misapplication of Hitler’s unfortunate misappropriation of Hindu symbols, such as the inverted swastika and his misconstrued use of the word “Aryan”.

In such a virulent environment, it still came as a surprise when two highly respected professors told me that as a consequence of saffron education, 80% of New Delhi’s brightest students admired Hitler. I roundly questioned the actuality of their claim. However, I was sincerely assured with absolute conviction that this statistic was true, leading to the assumption that need not be questioned—the Manu-vadis are winning the ideological war. . . secularism and democracy are in danger in a rapidly Nazifying, saffronizing India.

In retrospect, perhaps since I am a non-‐Indian scholar, those making this claim thought I would uncritically accept their indisputable “fact” that 80% of the youth of India, under the pall of the BJP, had developed a great admiration for Hitler. Perhaps I would go home to the USA after my trip to India in 2000, and warn my countrymen about the danger or the BJP.

The supposed Nazi scare in Delhi reminded me of a conversation I’d had with two college students when I was at the Amber Fort with my daughter in the summer of 1992. We were standing out of the sun on the windy balcony of the castle, overlooking the hills and river below, when two boys struck up a conversation. There was also a man and woman from Germany, taking refuge from the sun and enjoying the view. We were all surprised when these college boys told us that they liked Adolf Hitler; and this was years before the BJP’s electoral successes.

The German couple seemed offended and walked away. I told those young men that, had they lived in Hitler’s Germany, their bronze complexions and dark black hair would have doomed them to the gas chambers. I have always assumed that, among Indian college students, those two boys in Rajasthan were the exception, not the rule. I have had literally dozens of conversations with young Indians and those are the only two who have ever mentioned Hitler, much less expressed admiration for him.
A few days before leaving India, I met Professor Kumar in his office at Delhi University, which was buzzing with eager students exchanging photocopied materials.

A few years earlier, before I came to India to do my doctoral research, when I was a student at the University of Texas at Austin, I had written to Professor Krishna Kumar because I had read his work about textbooks, such as his insightful, almost antiestablishment educational analysis, Origins of India’s Textbook Culture.

We share an interest in textbooks and over the years had had several conversations about historiography in South Asia. The students soon departed and Professor Kumar and I discussed his family, whom I came to know during a previous visit to India, when I met his mother, who in 1947 had been a refugee from Pakistani Punjab.

I explained the focus of my current trip to India: to examine and distinguish the controversies raging in intellectual circles between the leftist camp, including scholars such as Krishna Kumar, Romila Thapar, Harbans Mukhia, Bipin Chandra, Sumit Sarkar and other well known professors at JNU and Delhi University, versus intellectuals lumped into the Sangh Parivar or so-‐called saffron camp, such as the prolific medievalist K.S. Lal, the archeologist S.P. Gupta, the historian Meenakshi Jain, and of course, the infamous Sita Ram Goel and Ram Swarup, and other vocal critics of post colonial historiography, such as Devendra Swarup, a retired history professor and avid archivist.

Interestingly, this targeted group of scholars included secular stalwarts such as Ashis Nandy and T.N. Madan, who were many shades away from saffron yet were somehow reclassified somewhere on the borders of that category because their ideas are slightly out of sync with the politically correct expectations of their leftist colleagues. Collecting data in this climate was intriguing.

During our conversation in his sparse but comfortable DU office, Prof. Krishna Kumar informed me that he had evidence indicating that, “80% of Indian youth idolize Adolph Hitler“. He offered this as a clear example of the negative impact of the “saffronization of education”. Frankly, I was a bit shocked by his statement. I knew quite a few Indians teenagers in Delhi and I would be surprised if any of them would consider Hitler anything more than a European curiosity. They would probably be more likely to cite their father or grandfather, especially if their parents were within earshot, or Mahatma Gandhi or Nehru, or Netaji, perhaps Einstein, but not Hitler. Professor Kumar assured me that a reputable colleague had verified this information; there was scholarly documentation that “80% of the students graduating from schools such as St. Stephen’s held Hitler in very high regard”.

Not only did this statistic seem extremely exaggerated but I wondered how a political party and its affiliates could have had such a pronounced and pandemic impact on the minds of the young since ascending to power just two years earlier in 1998. I questioned his claim that this near unanimous admiration for Hitler among recently graduated students in New Delhi could be singularly due to the sinister influence of the Sangh Parivar.

Through the many years I have spent in India, I have met numerous RSS members, young and old, and in the course of intense conversations, not one has ever expressed admiration for Hitler; if anything they have consciously distanced themselves from some of the early, pre-‐WWII ideas of their founder. This distancing from Hitler is also prevalent among those who hail Subhas Chandra Bose as a great Indian, when three years earlier the whole nation celebrated his centennial. In 1997, Netaji’s missions to Berlin were rarely mentioned; in fact such critiques were almost taboo.

Not to dismiss a thorough analysis of the perspectives found in Hedgewar’s early writings, and their contemporary relevance, what is important in this context is that the Sangh Parivar (represented by BJP led coalition) had simply not been in power long enough to have exerted such a dramatic influence on the ideological perspectives of the vast majority of New Delhi students.

In fact, after the BJP came to power at the center in 1998, most of their suggested policy changes were attacked and labeled saffron, their implementation not fully realized. In response to very articulate secular, socialist anti-saffron critics, the BJP consistently backed off their proposals generally not entirely implemented, but rather reviewed, reevaluated, and diluted. It is obvious that the Sangh’s opportunity to brainwash the youth of India through the educational system in 2000 was rather limited. In particular, their influence on the curriculum of private schools such as St. Stephen’s must have been quite minimal.

Official education policies of the BJP government could not have indoctrinated the students at St. Stephen’s, especially not on the vast scale indicated by Professor Kumar because they were tentatively implemented. Though I protested this 80% statistic, Prof. Kumar stuck by it, insisting it was true. He assured me that the information was genuine and documented: “80% of Indian youth, attending schools such as St. Stephens, think that Hitler is the greatest man of the twentieth century the result of saffron education”.

Numerous RSS members, young and old have never expressed admiration for Hitler; if anything they have consciously distanced themselves from some of the early, pre-‐WWII ideas of their founder. This distancing from Hitler is also prevalent among those who hail Subhas Chandra Bose as a great Indian, when three years earlier the whole nation celebrated his centennial.

I couldn’t leave India without finding the source of that incredible statistic. So, the next morning I telephoned Professor Kumar at home to confirm what he had said. When he repeated it, I was again skeptical. I asked him the source of this statistical information. He said that Professor Tanika Sarkar had told him. I had interviewed Professor Sarkar a few days earlier so I immediately rang her up, reaching her just as she was leaving her home to drive to JNU.

I documented our conversation at that time, writing this original narrative. I told her what Prof. Kumar had said and asked her to clarify his statement since she was the source of the information. She said it was true. She had been conducting university entrance interviews with potential students from schools such as St. Stephens and “80% of the students thought that Hitler was the greatest man of the twentieth century.” I argued with her. It seemed an impossibly huge number. She explained that actually, it was 80% of the “thinking students” , those who could “articulate the reasons for their answers”. About half of the students interviewed were what she considered “thinking students.” When they were asked who was the most important person of the twentieth century, 80% of New Delhi’s best and brightest responded “Hitler.”

I simply could not believe what I was hearing. I hypothesized that if I were to ask a hundred well- educated Indian nineteen year olds, “Who was the most important person of the twentieth century?” I am certain that most of them would answer “Gandhi”. I suspect that very few would care much at all about Hitler. Tanika Sarkar said that she had conducted the interviews earlier that summer and was herself stunned that 80% of the “thinking” student, she emphasized this, those who could offer “sophisticated reasons for their answers” 80% of New Delhi’s “brightest students admired Hitler” as the “most important historical person of the twentieth century”.

Since these “thinking students” represented 50% of all the students she interviewed, the other 50% were ones who just gave “quick responses” and “couldn’t articulate reasons for their selections”. She said that the majority of these less bright students “automatically chose Gandhi”. I wondered silently why those who selected Mahatma Gandhi were seen as less sophisticated.

I asked Prof. Sarkar if the students actually admired Hitler or perhaps had suggested him as someone who was not the greatest but rather the most notorious person of the past century. She emphasized again that this response had come from the more “sophisticated students who could best express themselves and justify their answers”. Therefore they had been able to explain, that “Hitler brought Germany back from bankruptcy and made it a strong nation. He united the German people towards a common purpose”.

Professor Tanika Sarkar added that none of the students mentioned the fact that “Hitler had ultimately brought about the destruction of his country” and that he is responsible for unspeakable, horrible crimes of genocide. She blamed “Saffron ideology for having indoctrinated these students”.
I asked her about the specific question that had elicited this overwhelming proof of BJP-‐inspired Hitler-‐philia among Indian teenagers. Initially Professor Sarkar had said the students “admired” Hitler, but when I found that hard to believe, she explained that they had mentioned Hitler as the “the greatest” historical figure in the twentieth century. She lamented that in these types of entrance interviews conducted for the university there is very little time and many questions to ask, so she was unable to dwell on this Hitler phenomenon at length with each student.

Since Professor Sarkar is an outspoken critic of the Sangh Parivar and has authored such books as “Khaki Shorts Saffron Flags,” I was surprised when eight out of ten of the most promising young scholars cited Hitler as their hero, she didn’t ask a few more specific questions to locate the source of this unimaginable statistic. Though I was still very skeptical, I asked her why she thought 80% of the “thinking” students whom she interviewed held Hitler in such high esteem. She answered, “They have never been taught the evils of nationalism.” I had delayed enough and she had to get to school, and I thanked her, though flabbergasted by her data and interpretation.

During my meeting with Prof. Krishna Kumar, when discussing the philosophy of the Sangh Parivar, he had informed me that when the Hindi version of “Mein Kampf” was published in New Delhi it sold out immediately. He elaborated, “Most Hindus think Judaism is a sub-sect of Islam” and that is why they support Hitler’s anti-‐Jewish theories. Since he embraced the paradigm that Hindutva = Nazism, he elaborated about the Hindu/Hitler connection based on this assumption, arguing that Saffronites think Jews and Muslims are the same and that “most Hindus, especially those on the Hindu Right, dislike Judaism”. I argued that I had observed just the opposite.

I explained that among the so-‐called Saffronites there is an empathy with Israel, a nation also surrounded by “hostile Muslim states”. Additionally, many Hindu intellectuals compare the Jewish Holocaust, the murder of millions of Jews by the Nazis, to the situation in India and the condition of Hindus during and after the eleventh century. They cite the absurdity and immorality of the Negationists, who have tried to deny that there, was ever a Jewish Holocaust. These Hindu-‐centric intellectuals claim that the application of Negationism has been systematically used to deny and obscure the historical evidence of a Hindu Holocaust. Professor Kumar seemed genuinely surprised. He surmised that these ideas are undoubtedly current only among “elite Hindu intellectuals”, asserting that the “common Hindu has very little information about Judaism”.

This may be true. However, “the common Hindu” in a village in Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Bihar, H.P., or elsewhere often has woefully little information about many topics of international interest including Judaism, the Pope, the UN, Israel, or Hitler. In contrast, the modern young students in Delhi cannot be classified along with this amorphous mass of “common Hindus,” whoever they are, who are woefully uninformed about Judaism.
I returned to America, harboring serious doubts that the majority of the brightest students graduating from elite schools in Delhi, students who are well aware of current issues such as globalization, tensions at the LOC, info-‐technology, economic liberalization, etc. are enamored en mass by Hitler’s legacy.

These students could not have read rave reviews about Hitler in their history books. Textbooks used atsuch schools are certainly not written from a Fascist perspective. It’s unlikely that they learned to admire Hitler from their teachers, who, perhaps, unbeknown to the principal and the parents, are really closet neo-‐Nazis secretly indoctrinating their young students. Highly unlikely! I wondered if 80% of the thinking students whom I had seen in Prof. Kumar’s office also idolized Hitler. Or was it a malady found only in the year 2000 graduating class?

Through the years, Professor Kumar and Professor Sarkar have professionally and personally promoted a very anti-Saffron agenda, they feel passionately about India’s pluralist heritage, and rightly so. Undoubtedly they must have been aware of changing ideas among different batches of their students through the years. I wondered if they had seen a gradual drift towards fascism or if this was a recent trend exponentially encouraged, as they claim, by the BJP’s success at the polls. How was such an overwhelming majority of savvy young urban Hindus suddenly transformed into brigades of Hitler Youth? Was it a serious wake-up call, manufactured political propaganda, a fluke, or just sheer fantasy?

Inevitably in the coming five years of Narendra Modi’s administration, there will be a related propaganda onslaught, an outcry of emerging anti-saffron media events, a gathering tsunami. A veritable extravaganza of stories about fascism has already begun. Invented stories such as the rise of fascism in New Delhi during the 2000 scare of Hitler’s Hindu youth, will be again created with journalistic aplomb.

Many years ago a Jewish-American woman told me, that her boyfriend, while visiting India in the mid-eighties, saw a viewing of Raiders of the Lost Ark. He told her that when the camera panned to a giant red swastika on the roof of the Nazi compound in Vienna, the audience in New Delhi spontaneously applauded. Does this indicate a Saffron inspired admiration for Hitler or perhaps more probably a lack of understanding of the implications of Hitler’s unfortunate misappropriation of the swastika symbol? Was this film going crowd a bunch of Jew-bashing “common Hindus,” the uninformed group postulated by Professor Kumar, or were they sophisticated Hitler-buffs like the “thinking students” Professor Sarkar interviewed from St. Stephens?

That aerial view of the red swastika came before the audience was introduced to Indiana Jones’ enemies, who were Nazis. The sinister meaning of the Third Reich’s abuse of the swastika is not so familiar to non Euro-Americans who have opposite childhood experiences of a red swastika. The audience in Delhi applauded a recognizable Hindu symbol, unaware as of yet, in the movie, of the swastika’s automatic negative appropriation in the Western psyche.

Subsequently, while in graduate school in the nineties, I heard this Raiders of the Lost Ark observation cited as proof of a morbid Hindu penchant for Nazism. I was rather perturbed by this astonishing naïve claim. In New Delhi, the 1985 audience more than likely represented a broad swath of middle class urban Indians, most of whom had not gone to elite schools. Some degree holders, some who had matriculated, and others of working classes; this wide selection of the average Indian was familiar with Hindu symbols, while fairly uninformed about the Third Reich. Devoid of certain civilizational contexts, the sight a bright red swastika early in the film had made them cheer. The crowed at the theater in New Delhi only had a vague knowledge of the Nazi’s ubiquitous capture of the swastika symbol. Many in the theater may have gotten a better understanding of Hitler’s misuse of the
swastika from watching Raiders of the Lost Ark.

I didn’t worry too much that the graduates of St. Stephen’s were becoming Nazis. I assumed that the dire warning of a BJP inspired neo-‐Nazi scare in New Delhi, was simply a brazen attempt to influence a presumptively gullible American scholar. I wondered ironically, how such an overwhelming majority of savvy young urban Hindus suddenly transformed into brigades of Hitler Youth? Was it a serious wake-‐up call, manufactured political propaganda, a fluke, or just sheer fantasy?

I didn’t feel a pressing need to conduct a scientific survey of college students attending St. Stephens and other elite institutions to determine if 80% of them chose Hitler as their hero, due to the influence of the BJP. I thought it was unfortunate that in the graduating class of 2000, Hindu teenagers, without their knowledge or consent, were conveniently labeled Neo-‐Nazis. What are their actual perspectives about history? Who are their heroes? Are they are a misguided, saffronized generation that idolizes Adolf Hitler? I remained skeptical. I suspected that this statistic was purposefully manufactured to promote and validate a sincerely held agenda, much to the disservice and ridicule of India’s future generation. Now that the dreaded BJP has returned to power, I anticipate that these scare tactics will emerge once again.

When BJP lost power at the center in 2004, Professor Kumar served as the director of NCERT. He did an outstanding, nonpartisan job in a tense environment, bringing forth new books that were not based on the earlier NCERT model, but were centered on learning objectives, with input from a wide variety of scholars. From 2004 to 2010, when Prof Kumar served as the Director of National Council for Educational Research and Training, he prepared learning-‐centered documents pertaining to elementary education. Indicative of his focus on educational mastery and not theory he was instrumental in setting up Reading Cells, to focus on issues of early literacy in Indian classrooms.

I haven’t communicated with Professor Kumar in over a decade. The last time he contacted me, he informed me of the negative fall-out he had due to the publication of the first version of this narrative about Dr. Sarkar’s warning concerning the threat of Hitler’s Hindu youth.

Since, in 2000, I was amazed that Indian schools were accused of producing students who harbor a fascistic worldview, when I returned to the USA, I sent a long email to several friends requesting, almost tongue in cheek that they look into this claim. They passed the story around and it was published and at some point caused Professors Kumar and Sarkar some repercussions. The media hoopla is just beginning this time around.

Yvette Rosser

Dr. Yvette Claire Rosser, also known as Ram Rani is an American writer and scholar. She identifies as a Hindu and teaches Hinduism to Westerners. Her Ph.D. dissertation, “Curriculum as Destiny: Forging National Identity in India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh,” is a study of the politics of history in South Asia. She’s currently working on her next book on the politicization of history textbooks in the subcontinent.

Comments

LogicalLiberalAtheist a year ago
Thanks for this long, well-written article. I am astonished that those who blame the current head of Indian Council for Historical Research do not indict Prof Kumar for his strange, baseless statistic, and refuse to pursue him with the same level of doggedness.
1
Reply
Share ›
harihara a year ago
Any government in inia that was bharat, now should concventrate only on development of economic nature which means education, inustry, amenities , infra and science . They should not get dragged into any distractions like these. Once the quality of life improves for ALL , these mongerings etc will have to retreat ;

SSridhar
This Chiddi scum bag is a real idiot . He was accusing Modi of intolerance because Modi does not tolerate corruptions and scams . He was sitting on a time bomb of many corruptions and could not keep his dirty mouth shut . This ugly chiddi guy is a white skin waitress Sonia's close stooge . How close , just guess .
1090
about 4 hours ago
(1) · (0)

reply (0)

satyananda Up Voted
SSridhar
These all congress rascal are nothing but looters , crooks and thieves . No wonder these rascals are opposing Modi every day because he is a honest and hard worker and these thieves are afraid of him because he is a new sheriff in town and won't let any body steal India's money . Congress wants to remove Modi before more corruptions and scams are revealed . Congress , communists , AAP , Janta parties , TMC have nothing to offer to India . Just loot and more loot . MODI IS THE SAVIOR OF INDIA AND HER PEOPLE
1090
about 4 hours ago
(1) · (0)

reply (0)

satyananda Up Voted
RRRaman Raman
Why the agencies are waiting instead of arresting him and putting behind bars and also Chidmbaram as all these happened during his term as FM and probably the loot made by Chidambaram also must have been routed thru these firms of his son. Chidambaram is a pucca fraud and a Sonia stooge and both looted the country like anything.Karti Chidambaram is also involved in Ambulance scam in Haryana where he, vadra, Vayalar ravi's son have floated a firm and cornered contracts courtesy Hooda Govt on directions from Sonia and the purchases were only in bills and no actual purchases but monies paid and pocketed by these three masquteers.
325
about 2 hours ago
(0) · (0)

reply (1)
- Ssatyananda
  The pass BJP government was playing nice,now again Modiji government is playing to nice,where as the anti- national are playing dirty,come on Modiji go after these people,it been two years,they need to go to jail,for the development bus is passing us again......
  3560
  about an hour ago
  (0) · (0)
  
  reply (0)
Bala Srinivasan
While Karthik's international empire is growing&flourishing it is the obligation of the media to make sure that this empire of Karthik is within the INDIAN laws&it is the DUTY of INDIA to make SURE of it.
4365
about an hour ago
(1) · (0)

reply (0)

satyananda Up Voted
BBB
While family members of P Chidambaram invested money in Sri Lanka: Karuna (Chiddu 's political party chief) quite often expressed his anger when government of India made friendly overtures to Sri Lankan government. Karuna harangued government of India for not giving top priority to Tamils s plight in Sri Lanka. Karuna called Tamils in Sri Lanka "our brothers" because of shared language. Karuna in his old age needs young boys in bed to play with. Because he could not find anyone, so he threw a bait "our Tamil brothers".

Comment:

ROHITS UNIVERSITY WILL NOT BACK

Submitted by BALA (not verified) on Sun, 2016-02-28 08:52

The NGO S funded by foreign agencies, now deprived of access to funds by government action are instigating students, caste leaders in states vulnerable. Media on its part highlights it. Modi government and some zealots are trapped in the bait, instead of ignoring them and in the case of caste agitations calling before hand for discussion. these student agitations done by a minority of leftists if ignored will have a natural death, as nation will be diverted to attention on the next sensation. congress is also upto its dirty tricks. ISI, christian foreign institutions are behind this well planned conspiracy to see Modiji out

Monthly fixed Salary	50,000.00
Constituency Allowance	45,000.00
Office Expense	45,000.00
Total Fixed – Per Month	140,000.00
Total Fixed – Annual	1,680,000.00
Annual Allowances:-
Daily Allowance (DA)*		2,000.00
Total Annual DA	380,000.00	190 Days
Air Travel		34 Free tickets
Assuming 4 Person x 3K		12,000.00
Total Air Travel**	408,000.00
Rail Travel	5,000.00	Lumpsum
Water	4,000.00	4000 KL
Electricity	400,000.00	50000 Units free
Furniture	75,000.00	Minimum Assumption
Telephone	90,000.00	150,000.00
House Rent		35,000.00 p.m.
Total House Rent	420,000.00
Medical	40,000.00	Including for family
Total Annual Allowances	1,822,000.00
Total Allowance per month	151,833.33
Total Per Month	291,833.33
Total Per Annum	3,502,000.00

Vijay Mallya diverted Rs 4,000 crore to tax havens

Congress firm on challenging BJP's version of nationalism

Sonia has urged the party to fight the BJP and the RSS over the question of nationalism, sources said.

Eggs and tomato thrown at Subramanian Swamy's vehicle in Kanpur Published on Feb 26, 2016Eggs and tomato thrown at Subramanian Swamy's vehicle in Kanpur

Watch: Subramanian Swamy’s cavalcade pelted with eggs, tomatoes, ink

BJP district President Surendra Maithani said Swamy's cavalcade was on its way to SD college from circuit house around 11 AM for a seminar on global terrorism when protesters threw eggs, tomatoes, ink and garbage on it.

Mock drills to tackle Paris-like strike in Delhi

Raj Shekhar | TNN | Nov 29, 2015, 12.16 AM IST

Top Comment

President to stay off Pattanam

Secularist discourse resumes its Modi scare mongering

HYPOCRISY, DECEIT IN THE NAME OF JNU POLITICS

In the din of debate, a key fact is lost. The anti-national clique is also the most corrupt lot who have looted the nation's wealth and stashed away poor peoples' money in tax havens.

NaMo should nationalise kaalaadhan to restitute illicit wealth of PEPs (Polically Exposed Persons), bring it into the nation's financial system and use the wealth for sabka vikas.

Modi’s war on two fronts enters decisive phase

By MADHAV NALAPAT | NEW DELHI | 28 February, 2016 Pakistan GHQ is intensifying the efforts of its ‘non-terror front’.

Education is also about teaching values, taking pride in our heritage: TSR Subramanian

RAIDS DIG UP EMPIRE OF PC’S SON

JNU row: Rahul Gandhi, Kejriwal, Yechury among 9 booked for sedition

Rohith’s university will not support ‘break-India’ politics

By S. RAMA KRISHNA | HYDERABAD | 28 February, 2016

Comment:

JNU bent rules to give hostel rooms to Umar Khalid, D. Raja’s daughter

By ABHINANDAN MISHRA | NEW DELHI | 28 February, 2016

There are 21 Comments

Submitted by S Kumar (not verified) on Sun, 2016-02-28 00:56Self declared champions of the toiling masses live in Lutyens mansions. Kya bat hai.reply

Submitted by Varanasi Ramprasad (not verified) on Sun, 2016-02-28 11:57Revealing info on J N U hostel accommodation policy. The politicos break the law & cry hoarse on issues by raising them based on their political ambition.reply

Submitted by Shashi Desai (not verified) on Sun, 2016-02-28 12:36JNU Management should explain as to who gave instructions to bypass the rules to give accommodation to students who do more politics than study.Moreover Govt should adjust hostel charges according to market rates.reply

Submitted by Sanjay Singh (not verified) on Sun, 2016-02-28 16:29These r parasites of the system perpetuated by Congees n Commies. Need to pulverise n rewamp the system & flushout all parasites n termites lodged there!reply

Submitted by Viswanathan (not verified) on Sun, 2016-02-28 18:20IF PhD scholars are getting grants better they be given free accommodation. Collection and accounting of that 20rs per month itself may not be covered within that.reply

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 2016-02-28 18:31This is a secular decision. We unwashed Indians should not question it.reply

Submitted by Thyagarajan (not verified) on Sun, 2016-02-28 19:18Clear review is to be undertaken and all the local students who have residence in Delhi should be asked to vacate forthwithreply

Submitted by Thyagarajan (not verified) on Sun, 2016-02-28 19:18Clear review is to be undertaken and all the local students who have residence in Delhi should be asked to vacate forthwithreply

Submitted by Thyagarajan (not verified) on Sun, 2016-02-28 19:19Clear review is to be undertaken and all the local students who have residence in Delhi should be asked to vacate forthwithreply

Submitted by krishnan kutty (not verified) on Sun, 2016-02-28 19:33Utter dis regard to not only laid down guide lines by the authorities, but also total blind folded approach to humanity.reply

Submitted by Anil (not verified) on Sun, 2016-02-28 20:18This is false propagnda by upper caste ,rightist hindus against poor students fighting manuvad, brahmamvad.this is what they are going to say ,double standards by commiesreply

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 2016-02-28 23:12These Communists are as selfish and corrupt as the Congressmen.But they talk big.reply

Submitted by arvind kejriwal (not verified) on Mon, 2016-02-29 00:35modi must reply. sb mile hue h ji. ye sb se bada scam h. jantar mantar mai milo dharna krenge.reply

Budget 2016-2017 – Dull, Drab and Listless

Murty library editor: Petition wants US scholar removed, cites JNU remarks

Privilege Motion vs Privilege Motion in Lok Sabha

Eggs and tomato thrown at Subramanian Swamy's vehicle in Kanpur Published on Feb 26, 2016
Eggs and tomato thrown at Subramanian Swamy's vehicle in Kanpur

Submitted by S Kumar (not verified) on Sun, 2016-02-28 00:56
Self declared champions of the toiling masses live in Lutyens mansions. Kya bat hai.
reply

Submitted by Varanasi Ramprasad (not verified) on Sun, 2016-02-28 11:57
Revealing info on J N U hostel accommodation policy. The politicos break the law & cry hoarse on issues by raising them based on their political ambition.
reply

Submitted by Shashi Desai (not verified) on Sun, 2016-02-28 12:36
JNU Management should explain as to who gave instructions to bypass the rules to give accommodation to students who do more politics than study.Moreover Govt should adjust hostel charges according to market rates.
reply

Submitted by Sanjay Singh (not verified) on Sun, 2016-02-28 16:29
These r parasites of the system perpetuated by Congees n Commies. Need to pulverise n rewamp the system & flushout all parasites n termites lodged there!
reply

Submitted by Viswanathan (not verified) on Sun, 2016-02-28 18:20
IF PhD scholars are getting grants better they be given free accommodation. Collection and accounting of that 20rs per month itself may not be covered within that.
reply

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 2016-02-28 18:31
This is a secular decision. We unwashed Indians should not question it.
reply

Submitted by Thyagarajan (not verified) on Sun, 2016-02-28 19:18
Clear review is to be undertaken and all the local students who have residence in Delhi should be asked to vacate forthwith
reply

Submitted by Thyagarajan (not verified) on Sun, 2016-02-28 19:18
Clear review is to be undertaken and all the local students who have residence in Delhi should be asked to vacate forthwith
reply

Submitted by Thyagarajan (not verified) on Sun, 2016-02-28 19:19
Clear review is to be undertaken and all the local students who have residence in Delhi should be asked to vacate forthwith
reply

Submitted by krishnan kutty (not verified) on Sun, 2016-02-28 19:33
Utter dis regard to not only laid down guide lines by the authorities, but also total blind folded approach to humanity.
reply

Submitted by Anil (not verified) on Sun, 2016-02-28 20:18
This is false propagnda by upper caste ,rightist hindus against poor students fighting manuvad, brahmamvad.this is what they are going to say ,double standards by commies
reply

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 2016-02-28 23:12
These Communists are as selfish and corrupt as the Congressmen.But they talk big.
reply

Submitted by arvind kejriwal (not verified) on Mon, 2016-02-29 00:35
modi must reply. sb mile hue h ji. ye sb se bada scam h. jantar mantar mai milo dharna krenge.
reply