Jallikattu and the threat to Indian identity
The underlying divisions of opinion in India on Jallikattu are more complex than public discussions seem able to acknowledge. They highlight something more profound and important not readily apparent. The anti Hindu and anti Indian Dravidian political culture, crassly self serving now, is rooted, like the Khalistani movement, in the British colonial policy of divide-and-rule. But it innocently retained attachment to some pagan Hindu practices that evangelists and their local assets consider unpropitious to the mission of erasing the Hindu faith altogether. As Alexander Duff, a prominent nineteenth century missionary, wrote in the aftermath of the Indian revolt of 1857, the project was to transform “idolatrous, superstition-ridden India; in which “the whole of Hinduism . . . is a huge congeries of falsities and lies,”.
What the somewhat petty controversy over Jallikattu indirectly confirms is that the conquest of India by eradicating its indigenous meme, initiated in eighth century, did not end in 1947. The struggle for control over India and its immense human and natural resources has continued unabated. Jallikattu in fact underlines, as do other analogous issues, two fundamental realities likely to determine the outcome of the struggle for its control. The first is the derisory understanding of the outside world of Indian society and most of its elites. The second and related shortcoming is the inability to respond collectively as a united society against challenges to India’s integrity and autonomy.
Jallikattu is a singularly unattractive practice that ought to be abandoned. At the same time it is a vestige of the Indian past, many historic aspects of which are increasingly being questioned, in succession, by forces deeply hostile to Indic culture and its Hindu foundations. The diabolical foreign evangelical forces and their NGO surrogates challenging Jallikattu are not really bothered about anyone’s welfare, animals least of all. But they perceive in the abhorrent sport of Jallikattu an Indian societal fissure that can be exploited to advance their own nefarious goals. The internal divisions over Jallikattu appear to offer them further opportunities to undermine India’s Hindu identity and autonomy. The sport supposedly troubles these foreign interventionists more than the horrendous hourly brutal killing of millions of animals to uphold bleak religious injunctions. Nor are these fraudulent human and animal rights activists exercised over the genocidal slaughter of people in various parts of the world undertaken by the nations from which they originate.
The truth of the matter is that India is a target for foreign control. All debates about human rights, democracy and tolerance are ideological instruments to achieve this purpose. Indian domestic counterparts of these arrant conspiracies in politics, media and academia are mere echoes of a phenomenon that has found what can aptly be described as a comprador class within Indian society. The subjugation of India is being attempted because it is judged feasible and its society is divided and vulnerable. Many of its politicians are in the pay of foreign countries, including Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, China and the US and its NATO allies. The Indian bureaucracy is self serving and much of it beholden to countries to which a huge swathe of the children of bureaucrats has migrated. Their professional aspirations are financed by subversive funding agencies, closely connected to the government. The Indian media is pretty much an ancillary of sedition and treason and its film industry a cultural front of imperialist Islam. Indian celluloid entertainment is largely a secondary aspect of the project to undermine the self confidence of India’s Hindu people and their faith by portraying it as prone to criminality as well as instinctively lascivious.
Hindu India has not had a genuine and autonomous state for over a thousand years that could establish an indigenous political culture of statecraft and traditions of confident self governance. China’s history of continuous sovereignty, despite defeats and setback after the nineteenth century and earlier Mongol incursions, though mostly absorbed into the pre-existing political culture of China, is a contrast to Indian foreign subjugation. India’s foreign rulers, both Muslim and British, were brutal overseers, thoroughly alienated from its indigenous Hindus, whom they regarded as contemptible pagans. The condition of Hindus was of neo slavery, physically threatened constantly and psychologically neutered. Indeed even Persia has been independent for most of its history and remains deeply aware of its traditions and glorious imperial primacy in the region, despite religious conversion. Independent regional Indian kingdoms were short-lived and rarely lasted more than two generations after the passing of their founder. The Marathas declined into internal squabbles and brigandage after the glorious Chhatrapati Shivaji and the incompetent successors of Maharaja Ranjit Singh were easily swept aside by the British.
All that happened after Indian independence was installation of inept and effete political elites and administrators socialised to serve British imperial rule. They quickly adopted an imported economic model that prevented India from creating an abundant and deeply-rooted entrepreneurial class and that continues to haunt it. Economic success that eluded India could have created wealth and prosperity to provide the means for self assertion and mitigated domestic protest by groups that still seek today to destroy the Indian Union.
The self confident Nehru, neither Gandhian nor Machiavellian, rapidly bartered away India internationally, losing much of Kashmir and with it direct access to Afghanistan, a veritable calamity still not fully grasped by Indians. The ‘great man’ refused to listen to sound advice from Sardar Vallabhai Patel and the astute head of the China desk, preferring instead the treasonous courtier, K. M. Panikkar, he had sent as ambassador to China. In the process he jeopardised Indian security and has left the entire eastern half of the country vulnerable to desolation because China now controls the Brahmaputra River. Nehru’s pathetic letters to John F. Kennedy, the US President, appealing for help, while Chinese forces advanced untroubled, are a testament to his foolhardy pride and shocking incompetence.
Jallikattu is only one of India’s many domestic divisions that foreign interventionists and NGOs, especially those engaged in purveying poverty porn and religion, regard as opportune fissures in Indian society to exploit. They seek to reduce the Hindu imprint in the culture and practices of Indian society. Secularism and human rights have become their weapons of choice to undermine Hindu self awareness and promote Islam and Christianity. India’s socio-political elites are essentially enslaved to foreign perspectives on their own predicament. They buy pretty much anything thrown at them because they have long been socialised in self hate. The fact that India’s educated and chattering classes are clueless and happy to collaborate with anyone from abroad and take their cue from the execrable BBC and New York Times to judge their own society says it all. This phenomenon is a variant on how Mexico’s Aztec emperor Montezuma lost his kingdom, exposing his people to slavery and eventual destruction, having foolishly imagined the invaders were gods and failing to kill them all when it was entirely feasible.
Dr. Gautam Sen
21st January 2017